From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: dts: Add Exynos5250 Snow Rev5+ support Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:02:36 +0900 Message-ID: <560B890C.3060200@samsung.com> References: <1443527855-434-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <560B2D29.5060707@samsung.com> <560B8818.8020002@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout3.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.13]:15347 "EHLO mailout3.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753746AbbI3HCs (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 03:02:48 -0400 In-reply-to: <560B8818.8020002@kernel.org> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Kukjin Kim Cc: Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Doug Anderson , Olof Johansson , Russell King , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Kumar Gala , Ian Campbell , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 30.09.2015 15:58, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 09/30/15 09:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 29.09.2015 20:57, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>> There are 2 revisions of the Exynos5250 Snow Chromebook that were shipped: >>> Rev4 and Rev5. The only difference between these 2 revisions is the codec, >>> Rev4 has a max98095 codec while Rev5 has a max98090. >>> >>> Mainline only supports Rev4 so this patch moves the common device nodes to >>> a DTSI file and adds a DTS for the Exynos5250 Snow Rev5. >>> >>> The Snow Rev5 DTS is based on the DTS found in the ChromiumOS 3.8 tree. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas >>> >>> --- >>> >>> The DTS in the vendor ChromeOS tree are called exynos5250-snow-rev{4,5}.dtb >>> but I decided to leave Rev4 as exynos5250-snow.dtb to avoid breaking u-boot >>> that has CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="exynos5250-snow" in snow_defconfig. >>> >>> Also, ChromiumOS Rev4 DTS has "google,snow-rev4" in its compatible string >>> but was not added in mainline since Rev4 firmware fallbacks to "google,snow" >>> and Rev5 searches for "google,snow-rev5". That way the compatible string >>> could be consistent with the DTS naming and still be able to pack both Rev4 >>> and Rev5 FDT in the same FIT image and let the firmware pick the correct FDT. >>> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile | 1 + >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-common.dtsi | 684 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-rev5.dts | 47 ++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow.dts | 666 +------------------------ >>> 4 files changed, 733 insertions(+), 665 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-common.dtsi >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-rev5.dts >> >> Now the exynos5250-snow.dts means in fact Rev4... but there is no >> information in DTS about it. I think adding compatible >> "google,snow-rev4" makes sense: >> 1. For informational purposes (this could be also handled with a comment). >> 2. Later one could decide to switch the default meaning of "google,snow" >> to Rev5 and the real compatible (rev4) will be there already. >> >> Could you add the new compatible and fix patch issues pointed by Doug? >> > Documenting for the compatibles would be required even I already applied > its updated patch... What do you mean by "documenting compatibles"? These are board compatibles, they are not documented... Best regards, Krzysztof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: k.kozlowski@samsung.com (Krzysztof Kozlowski) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:02:36 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: dts: Add Exynos5250 Snow Rev5+ support In-Reply-To: <560B8818.8020002@kernel.org> References: <1443527855-434-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <560B2D29.5060707@samsung.com> <560B8818.8020002@kernel.org> Message-ID: <560B890C.3060200@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 30.09.2015 15:58, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 09/30/15 09:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 29.09.2015 20:57, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >>> There are 2 revisions of the Exynos5250 Snow Chromebook that were shipped: >>> Rev4 and Rev5. The only difference between these 2 revisions is the codec, >>> Rev4 has a max98095 codec while Rev5 has a max98090. >>> >>> Mainline only supports Rev4 so this patch moves the common device nodes to >>> a DTSI file and adds a DTS for the Exynos5250 Snow Rev5. >>> >>> The Snow Rev5 DTS is based on the DTS found in the ChromiumOS 3.8 tree. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas >>> >>> --- >>> >>> The DTS in the vendor ChromeOS tree are called exynos5250-snow-rev{4,5}.dtb >>> but I decided to leave Rev4 as exynos5250-snow.dtb to avoid breaking u-boot >>> that has CONFIG_DEFAULT_DEVICE_TREE="exynos5250-snow" in snow_defconfig. >>> >>> Also, ChromiumOS Rev4 DTS has "google,snow-rev4" in its compatible string >>> but was not added in mainline since Rev4 firmware fallbacks to "google,snow" >>> and Rev5 searches for "google,snow-rev5". That way the compatible string >>> could be consistent with the DTS naming and still be able to pack both Rev4 >>> and Rev5 FDT in the same FIT image and let the firmware pick the correct FDT. >>> >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile | 1 + >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-common.dtsi | 684 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-rev5.dts | 47 ++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow.dts | 666 +------------------------ >>> 4 files changed, 733 insertions(+), 665 deletions(-) >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-common.dtsi >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-snow-rev5.dts >> >> Now the exynos5250-snow.dts means in fact Rev4... but there is no >> information in DTS about it. I think adding compatible >> "google,snow-rev4" makes sense: >> 1. For informational purposes (this could be also handled with a comment). >> 2. Later one could decide to switch the default meaning of "google,snow" >> to Rev5 and the real compatible (rev4) will be there already. >> >> Could you add the new compatible and fix patch issues pointed by Doug? >> > Documenting for the compatibles would be required even I already applied > its updated patch... What do you mean by "documenting compatibles"? These are board compatibles, they are not documented... Best regards, Krzysztof