From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: disable PCIe for SD5v1 board Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:12:54 -0700 Message-ID: <526E7EF6.3020400@samsung.com> References: <000301cea9fe$619d2900$24d77b00$%han@samsung.com> <000101ced39f$b553ec80$1ffbc580$%han@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-oa0-f44.google.com ([209.85.219.44]:35904 "EHLO mail-oa0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756004Ab3J1Pxb (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:53:31 -0400 Received: by mail-oa0-f44.google.com with SMTP id l20so3813832oag.3 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2013 08:53:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Olof Johansson Cc: Jingoo Han , Kukjin Kim , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" On 10/28/13 08:15, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:36 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: >> On Monday, October 28, 2013 1:52 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Jingoo Han wrote: >>>> Disable PCIe for SD5v1 board, because there is no PCIe slot >>>> on SD5v1 board. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han >>>> --- >>>> Tested on SD5v1 board. >>>> >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440-sd5v1.dts | 7 +++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440-sd5v1.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440-sd5v1.dts >>>> index 5b22508..78a239d 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440-sd5v1.dts >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5440-sd5v1.dts >>>> @@ -36,4 +36,11 @@ >>>> status = "disabled"; >>>> }; >>>> >>>> + pcie@290000 { >>>> + status = "disabled"; >>>> + }; >>>> + >>>> + pcie@2a0000 { >>>> + status = "disabled"; >>>> + }; >>>> }; >>> >>> Usually IP blocks like these are always left disabled in the dtsi, and >>> explicitly _enabled_ in the DTS on boards that make use of that part >>> of the chip. >>> So the real solution here should be to move the disabling to the 5440 >>> .dtsi instead. >> >> OK, right. >> Thank you for your guidance. >> >> Then, do you mean the following? >> If it is right, I will send the v2 patch. > > Yes, exactly! > Hmm...I thought both ways (#1 disabling something in soc dt, enabling in board dt if required, #2 enabling in soc dt, disabling in board dt if required) are possible but I have no strong objection with your suggestion. In addition, just one way is more clear to us :) OK, I will keep the way for Samsung stuff. Thanks, Kukjin