From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:47:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: shmobile: Koelsch: add Ether support Message-Id: <5272B3B1.8090503@cogentembedded.com> List-Id: References: <201310310216.28673.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <201310310219.58963.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hello. On 10/31/2013 11:10 AM, Magnus Damm wrote: >> Register Ether platform device and pin data on the Koelsch board. >> Register platform fixup for Micrel KSZ8041 PHY, just like on the Lager board. >> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> Index: renesas/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c >> =================================>> --- renesas.orig/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c >> +++ renesas/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c >> @@ -70,11 +87,29 @@ static const struct gpio_keys_platform_d >> .nbuttons = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio_buttons), >> }; >> >> +static const struct pinctrl_map koelsch_pinctrl_map[] = { >> + /* Ether */ >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7790-ether", "pfc-r8a7791", >> + "eth_link", "eth"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7790-ether", "pfc-r8a7791", >> + "eth_mdio", "eth"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7790-ether", "pfc-r8a7791", >> + "eth_rmii", "eth"), >> +}; > Once again we seem to be using r8a7790 when the actual SoC is r8a7791. Note that the last time it was in the DT context which is not quite the same as platfrom device context. > If you're going to go down the route of using the SoC name then please I don't have much choice here. Though we could have used used R-Car gen1/gen2 terminology (at least in the hindsight)... > use the correct one at least. It wasn't me who used "r8a7790-ether" name in the first place, it was Simon. And as these 2 SoCs are indistinguishable at least from the 'sh_eth' driver's point of view, I wouldn't want to introduce another platform device ID, especially as it hasn't been done for R8A777[89] SoCs. What I can offer is renaming "r8a7790-ether" to "r8a779x-ether" if you really want. > Cheers, > / magnus WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 22:46:57 +0300 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: shmobile: Koelsch: add Ether support In-Reply-To: References: <201310310216.28673.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> <201310310219.58963.sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> Message-ID: <5272B3B1.8090503@cogentembedded.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 10/31/2013 11:10 AM, Magnus Damm wrote: >> Register Ether platform device and pin data on the Koelsch board. >> Register platform fixup for Micrel KSZ8041 PHY, just like on the Lager board. >> Signed-off-by: Sergei Shtylyov >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c | 61 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> Index: renesas/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c >> =================================================================== >> --- renesas.orig/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c >> +++ renesas/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/board-koelsch.c >> @@ -70,11 +87,29 @@ static const struct gpio_keys_platform_d >> .nbuttons = ARRAY_SIZE(gpio_buttons), >> }; >> >> +static const struct pinctrl_map koelsch_pinctrl_map[] = { >> + /* Ether */ >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7790-ether", "pfc-r8a7791", >> + "eth_link", "eth"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7790-ether", "pfc-r8a7791", >> + "eth_mdio", "eth"), >> + PIN_MAP_MUX_GROUP_DEFAULT("r8a7790-ether", "pfc-r8a7791", >> + "eth_rmii", "eth"), >> +}; > Once again we seem to be using r8a7790 when the actual SoC is r8a7791. Note that the last time it was in the DT context which is not quite the same as platfrom device context. > If you're going to go down the route of using the SoC name then please I don't have much choice here. Though we could have used used R-Car gen1/gen2 terminology (at least in the hindsight)... > use the correct one at least. It wasn't me who used "r8a7790-ether" name in the first place, it was Simon. And as these 2 SoCs are indistinguishable at least from the 'sh_eth' driver's point of view, I wouldn't want to introduce another platform device ID, especially as it hasn't been done for R8A777[89] SoCs. What I can offer is renaming "r8a7790-ether" to "r8a779x-ether" if you really want. > Cheers, > / magnus WBR, Sergei