From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:35:33 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] ARM: at91: introduce SAMA5 support In-Reply-To: References: <1362755638-20092-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <1362755638-20092-5-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <513a1756.e94aec0a.1f22.6694SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com> <20130308185625.GF4590@game.jcrosoft.org> Message-ID: <20130311123533.GA2001@game.jcrosoft.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 22:27 Fri 08 Mar , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > On 8 March 2013 19:56, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: > > On 18:18 Fri 08 Mar , Joachim Eastwood wrote: > >> On 8 March 2013 17:52, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > > > > >> >> > >> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sama5.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sama5.c > >> >> > new file mode 100644 > >> >> > index 0000000..705305e > >> >> > --- /dev/null > >> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sama5.c > >> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,86 @@ > >> >> > +/* > >> >> > + * Setup code for SAMA5 Evaluation Kits with Device Tree support > >> >> > + * > >> >> > + * Copyright (C) 2013 Atmel, > >> >> > + * 2013 Ludovic Desroches > >> >> > + * > >> >> > + * Licensed under GPLv2 or later. > >> >> > + */ > >> >> > + > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > + > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > +#include > >> >> > + > >> >> > +#include "at91_aic.h" > >> >> > +#include "generic.h" > >> >> > + > >> >> > + > >> >> > +static const struct of_device_id irq_of_match[] __initconst = { > >> >> > + > >> >> > + { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-aic", .data = at91_aic5_of_init }, > >> >> > + { /*sentinel*/ } > >> >> > +}; > >> >> > + > >> >> > +static void __init at91_dt_init_irq(void) > >> >> > +{ > >> >> > + of_irq_init(irq_of_match); > >> >> > +} > >> >> > + > >> >> > +static int ksz9021rn_phy_fixup(struct phy_device *phy) > >> >> > +{ > >> >> > + int value; > >> >> > + > >> >> > +#define GMII_RCCPSR 260 > >> >> > +#define GMII_RRDPSR 261 > >> >> > +#define GMII_ERCR 11 > >> >> > +#define GMII_ERDWR 12 > >> >> > + > >> >> > + /* Set delay values */ > >> >> > + value = GMII_RCCPSR | 0x8000; > >> >> > + phy_write(phy, GMII_ERCR, value); > >> >> > + value = 0xF2F4; > >> >> > + phy_write(phy, GMII_ERDWR, value); > >> >> > + value = GMII_RRDPSR | 0x8000; > >> >> > + phy_write(phy, GMII_ERCR, value); > >> >> > + value = 0x2222; > >> >> > + phy_write(phy, GMII_ERDWR, value); > >> >> > + > >> >> > + return 0; > >> >> > +} > >> >> > + > >> >> > +static void __init sama5_dt_device_init(void) > >> >> > +{ > >> >> > + if (of_machine_is_compatible("atmel,sama5d3xcm")) > >> >> > + phy_register_fixup_for_uid(PHY_ID_KSZ9021, MICREL_PHY_ID_MASK, > >> >> > + ksz9021rn_phy_fixup); > >> >> > + > >> >> > + of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL); > >> >> > +} > >> >> > + > >> >> > +static const char *sama5_dt_board_compat[] __initdata = { > >> >> > + "atmel,sama5", > >> >> > + NULL > >> >> > +}; > >> >> > + > >> >> > +DT_MACHINE_START(sama5_dt, "Atmel SAMA5 (Device Tree)") > >> >> > + /* Maintainer: Atmel */ > >> >> > + .init_time = at91sam926x_pit_init, > >> >> > + .map_io = at91_map_io, > >> >> > + .handle_irq = at91_aic5_handle_irq, > >> >> > + .init_early = at91_dt_initialize, > >> >> > + .init_irq = at91_dt_init_irq, > >> >> > + .init_machine = sama5_dt_device_init, > >> >> > + .dt_compat = sama5_dt_board_compat, > >> >> > +MACHINE_END > >> >> > >> >> Do we really need board-dt-sama5.c? > >> >> Now that we have both irqchip_init and clocksource_of_init it > >> >> shouldn't be necessary with more than one board-dt.c. > >> >> > >> > > >> > At the beginning, I had the same point of view but we have a new > >> > architecture, we can't build a single kernel image for both AT91SAM9 and > >> > SAMA5. So why not splitting it? > >> > >> It does add more lines to mach-at91 and I don't see a reason to have > >> two near identical board-dt files. board-dt could be used for SAMA5 > >> even without irqchip_init and clocksource_of_init so what's the point > >> in splitting it? > >> > >> When the at91 clocksource and irqchip driver are converted/moved we > >> could support all AT91 SoC from RM9200 to SAMA5 in one board-dt. I > >> don't see the reason for 3 board-dt files or even 2. > >> > >> That we can't build a kernel that supports both ARMv4-5 and ARMv7 > >> doesn't make a difference. > > my answer is no I do not want to if compatible_is on the c code so no > > different files > > But you have this already on the above code: > >> >> > + if (of_machine_is_compatible("atmel,sama5d3xcm")) > > I don't see the point to have different board-dt files. > If a board turns out to need lots of specific C code to work I think > it's fine to have it in its own board file. But right now you are just > duplicating code unnecessary. sorry my mind is made NACK I do want one file per core rm9200/sama9 sama5 no compatible_is and mutilple MACHINE_xx in the same file Best Regards, J. > regards > Joachim Eastwood