Re: [PATCH] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779 Marzen legacy fix

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Magnus,

On Monday 06 July 2015 16:58:12 Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:53 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Monday 06 July 2015 16:02:16 Magnus Damm wrote:
> >> From: Magnus Damm <damm+renesas@opensource.se>
> >> 
> >> Unbreak the r8a7779 Marzen legacy code provided by marzen_defconfig.
> >> 
> >> As it is today Marzen multiplatform is working, but the legacy code
> >> is broken. This patch intends to leave multiplatform as-is but do
> >> a simple one-shot fix to unbreak the legacy code base.
> >> 
> >> Without this patch there is no preset delay and the TWD is defined
> >> both in C code and in DT. Solve the delay by invoking
> >> shmobile_init_delay()
> >> and simply exclude the TWD DT instance in case of building for legacy.
> >> 
> >> Marzen legacy code will be removed in the near future, but until then
> >> we may as well avoid breaking it.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm+renesas@opensource.se>
> >> ---
> >> 
> >>  Built on top of renesas-devel-20150629-v4.1
> >>  
> >>  arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7779.dtsi         |    4 ++--
> >>  arch/arm/mach-shmobile/setup-r8a7779.c |    2 ++
> >>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> --- 0001/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7779.dtsi
> >> +++ work/arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7779.dtsi       2015-07-06
> >> 15:42:28.182366518 +0900 @@ -62,7 +62,7 @@
> >>               reg = <0xf0001000 0x1000>,
> >>                     <0xf0000100 0x100>;
> >>       };
> >> -
> >> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY /* TWD defined in C code for legacy
> >> case */
> >>       timer@f0000600 {
> >>               compatible = "arm,cortex-a9-twd-timer";
> >>               reg = <0xf0000600 0x20>;
> >> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@
> >>                       (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)>;
> >>               clocks = <&cpg_clocks R8A7779_CLK_ZS>;
> >>       };
> >> -
> >> +#endif
> > 
> > DT should really not depend on kernel configuration. Can't you disable the
> > device from legacy board/SoC code instead ?
> 
> I agree about that dependency issue, and it may be quite possible to
> do something at runtime.
> 
> At this time I feel it becomes slightly more advanced than I initially
> had hoped for. I would of course prefer to remove the legacy rather
> soon, and once we do that we can simply get rid of that ugly ifdef.

That would of course be my preferred solution too :-)

> Anyway, I'll have a look at this tomorrow.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart