From: david.jander@protonic.nl (David Jander)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM i.MX51: setup mipi
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 09:55:54 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120607095554.7e68ae5a@archvile> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAQ0ZWQX60YWvEi-cWtTouMoxg1WxWo_soHf+4gE7oXsPfC_1g@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 15:10:05 +0800
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 7 June 2012 14:13, David Jander <david.jander@protonic.nl> wrote:
> > I would consider it part of SoC setup for the simple reason, that this
> > peripheral officially does not even exist (although it is physically there in
> > the chip and unfortunately _needs_ to be initialized). There is no
> > documentation of it anywhere (besides old, obsolete and unreleased manuals).
> > If one wanted to implement an IPU driver later on, there would be no way of
> > knowing that this part must be done first. We should take the chance that
> > someone happens to have this "knowledge" and do this (further harmless)
> > initialization in SoC setup, so that it is dealt with and won't get in the way
> > later. There is no worse driver developer nightmare than incomplete
> > documentation causing your otherwise correct driver to just not work.
> > OTOH, if this was an officially supported peripheral, it should have it's own
> > driver and not be part of the IPU driver either.
> >
> That does not necessarily mean imx51_soc_init() is the right place for
> that initialization, simply because not every single boot of imx51
> needs that initialization.
I agree, but I couldn't come up with a better place.
> I can probably accept the mipi initialization changes if you are saying
> imx51_soc_init is not the right place for it either, but at the moment
> there is no better place than imx51_soc_init().
Sounds good. Yes, can we agree on that?
> But why can't we do ipu reset (the second patch) in ipu driver then?
No idea... I don't want to preempt Sascha here.
Just my guess: The system reset controller could potentially be used by other
peripherals, and in that case it would need to be a separate driver with
locking for register access. Doing it here seems a safe way of avoiding
concurrent access to the register of the SRC?
Same reason as above?
Best regards,
--
David Jander
Protonic Holland.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-07 7:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-05 9:30 i.MX IPU preparation patches Sascha Hauer
2012-06-05 9:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM i.MX51: setup mipi Sascha Hauer
2012-06-07 2:59 ` Shawn Guo
2012-06-07 6:13 ` David Jander
2012-06-07 7:10 ` Shawn Guo
2012-06-07 7:55 ` David Jander [this message]
2012-06-07 8:43 ` Sascha Hauer
2012-06-07 13:37 ` Shawn Guo
2012-06-09 11:32 ` Sascha Hauer
2012-06-11 9:41 ` Shawn Guo
2012-06-05 9:30 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM i.MX5: Hard reset the IPU during startup Sascha Hauer
2012-06-05 10:29 ` Lothar Waßmann
2012-06-05 11:08 ` Sascha Hauer
2012-08-06 21:31 ` Matt Sealey
2012-08-07 17:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-08-07 23:06 ` Matt Sealey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120607095554.7e68ae5a@archvile \
--to=david.jander@protonic.nl \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox