From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylwester Nawrocki Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 2/3] ARM: S5PV310: Add a platform helper for MIPI DSIM/CSIS setup Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:36:43 +0900 Message-ID: <4D2E653B.4090502@samsung.com> References: <1294153764-25006-1-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <1294153764-25006-3-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <020401cbb2c1$ef9f7c30$cede7490$%kim@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Return-path: Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]:61228 "EHLO mailout3.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932538Ab1AMCg4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:36:56 -0500 Received: from spt2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]) by mailout3.w1.samsung.com (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-8.04 (built Jul 29 2009; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0LEX00654WLHW770@mailout3.w1.samsung.com> for linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:36:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.89.54.82] by spt2.w1.samsung.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTPA id <0LEX00NU7WLE2Q@spt2.w1.samsung.com> for linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 13 Jan 2011 02:36:53 +0000 (GMT) In-reply-to: <020401cbb2c1$ef9f7c30$cede7490$%kim@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Kukjin Kim Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, ben-linux@fluff.org, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, inki.dae@samsung.com On 01/13/2011 10:33 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> >> MIPI_PHYn_CONTROL registers are shared between MIPI DSIM >> and MIPI CSIS drivers so a spinlock is used to protect multiple >> access to these registers. Also a proper state of a common >> PHY enable bit is maintained in order to avoid a DSIM >> and CSIS driver conflict. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park >> --- ... > > Basically, it's not good that each machine(SoC) has each own setup-mipi... > Because it is very similar(almost same)...means can move it in plat-s5p with > following. > > 1. # of MIPI PHY can be calculated by platform device id > 2. can use same definition of MIPI PHY control address with same name > re-mapping. Yes, I agree with that. Originally I had it done it plat-s5p, I will prepare a merged version. The main difference between s5pv210 and s5pv310 indeed was the register naming and placement in PMU or CLK subsystem, so the register address definitions were in regs-clk.h or regs-pmu.h. So there just will have to be included different header files depending on on SoC architecture. Regards, -- Sylwester Nawrocki Samsung Poland R&D Center From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.nawrocki@samsung.com (Sylwester Nawrocki) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:36:43 +0900 Subject: [PATCH/RFC 2/3] ARM: S5PV310: Add a platform helper for MIPI DSIM/CSIS setup In-Reply-To: <020401cbb2c1$ef9f7c30$cede7490$%kim@samsung.com> References: <1294153764-25006-1-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <1294153764-25006-3-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <020401cbb2c1$ef9f7c30$cede7490$%kim@samsung.com> Message-ID: <4D2E653B.4090502@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/13/2011 10:33 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> >> MIPI_PHYn_CONTROL registers are shared between MIPI DSIM >> and MIPI CSIS drivers so a spinlock is used to protect multiple >> access to these registers. Also a proper state of a common >> PHY enable bit is maintained in order to avoid a DSIM >> and CSIS driver conflict. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park >> --- ... > > Basically, it's not good that each machine(SoC) has each own setup-mipi... > Because it is very similar(almost same)...means can move it in plat-s5p with > following. > > 1. # of MIPI PHY can be calculated by platform device id > 2. can use same definition of MIPI PHY control address with same name > re-mapping. Yes, I agree with that. Originally I had it done it plat-s5p, I will prepare a merged version. The main difference between s5pv210 and s5pv310 indeed was the register naming and placement in PMU or CLK subsystem, so the register address definitions were in regs-clk.h or regs-pmu.h. So there just will have to be included different header files depending on on SoC architecture. Regards, -- Sylwester Nawrocki Samsung Poland R&D Center