[PATCH v2 0/5] ARM: Add support for Broadcom BCM476x SoCs

[PATCH v2 0/5] ARM: Add support for Broadcom BCM476x SoCs

[Domenico Andreoli]

Hallo,

  first of all thank you for the feedback you've sent on the first
round of this patchset. I think I've addressed all the points plus some
extra I've found on the way. The details are in the description of the
single patches.

Tested on v3.7-rc1 (ddffeb8). Any feedback is welcome.

Thanks,
Domenico

[PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add platform infrastructure

[Domenico Andreoli]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: arm-bcm476x-add-infrastructure.patch
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121015/9f64b4e9/attachment.ksh>

[PATCH v2 2/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add system timer

[Domenico Andreoli]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: arm-bcm476x-add-system-timer.patch
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121015/99f89d0e/attachment.ksh>

[PATCH v2 3/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add ripple counter

[Domenico Andreoli]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: arm-bcm476x-add-ripple-counter.patch
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121015/594e107b/attachment.ksh>

[PATCH v2 4/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add stub clock driver

[Domenico Andreoli]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: arm-bcm476x-add-stub-clock-driver.patch
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121015/4c2fb98c/attachment.ksh>

[PATCH v2 5/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add restart hook

[Domenico Andreoli]

An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: arm-bcm476x-add-restart-hook.patch
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20121015/42c7c931/attachment.ksh>

[PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add platform infrastructure

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sunday 14 October 2012, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> From: Domenico Andreoli <domenico.andreoli@linux.com>
> 
> Platform infrastructure for the Broadcom BCM476x ARMv6 SoCs.

Hi Domenico,

All your patches look good to me now, except for one thing throughout
the bindings:

> Index: b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm476x.txt
> ===================================================================
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm476x.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +Broadcom BCM4760 and BCM4761 SoCs device tree bindings
> +------------------------------------------------------
> +
> +Boards with the BCM4760 SoC shall have the following properties:
> +
> +Required root node property:
> +
> +compatible = "brcm,bcm4760";
> +
> +
> +Boards with the BCM4761 SoC shall have the following properties:
> +
> +Required root node property:
> +
> +compatible = "brcm,bcm4761";

I probably wasn't clear enough with my request to have specific
chip identifiers in the device tree "compatible" nodes. The idea
generally is that for completely identical hardware blocks, you
just need to put the first known variant into the driver, e.g.
"brcm,bcm4760-system-timer", and in case of a later chip that
is compatible with it, you list both "brcm,bcm4760-system-timer"
and "brcm,bcm4761-system-timer" in the compatible property of the
device tree. The way you did it is also correct and works, but
is a bit less common.

How do you want to merge your patches? The preferred way from
our side is to get a pull request from you sent to arm at kernel.org
with Cc to the linux-arm-kernel mailing list, but we can also
pick up the patches separately if necessary.

For the patches that go into different directories like the clk
and the clocksource drivers, please Cc the respective subsystem
maintainers and ask them for an Ack. It certainly makes sense
for a new platform port to get merged through the arm-soc tree,
but any future improvements should normally just go through the
subsystem trees.

	Arnd

[PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add platform infrastructure

[Domenico Andreoli]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:48:01PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 14 October 2012, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> > From: Domenico Andreoli <domenico.andreoli@linux.com>
> > 
> > Platform infrastructure for the Broadcom BCM476x ARMv6 SoCs.
> 
> Hi Domenico,

Hi Arnd,

> All your patches look good to me now, except for one thing throughout
> the bindings:
> 
> > Index: b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm476x.txt
> > ===================================================================
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm476x.txt
> > @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> > +Broadcom BCM4760 and BCM4761 SoCs device tree bindings
> > +------------------------------------------------------
> > +
> > +Boards with the BCM4760 SoC shall have the following properties:
> > +
> > +Required root node property:
> > +
> > +compatible = "brcm,bcm4760";
> > +
> > +
> > +Boards with the BCM4761 SoC shall have the following properties:
> > +
> > +Required root node property:
> > +
> > +compatible = "brcm,bcm4761";
> 
> I probably wasn't clear enough with my request to have specific
> chip identifiers in the device tree "compatible" nodes. The idea
> generally is that for completely identical hardware blocks, you
> just need to put the first known variant into the driver, e.g.
> "brcm,bcm4760-system-timer", and in case of a later chip that
> is compatible with it, you list both "brcm,bcm4760-system-timer"
> and "brcm,bcm4761-system-timer" in the compatible property of the
> device tree. The way you did it is also correct and works, but
> is a bit less common.
> 
> How do you want to merge your patches? The preferred way from
> our side is to get a pull request from you sent to arm at kernel.org
> with Cc to the linux-arm-kernel mailing list, but we can also
> pick up the patches separately if necessary.

so the above becomes:

Index: b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm476x.txt
===================================================================
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/bcm476x.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Broadcom BCM4760 and BCM4761 SoCs device tree bindings
+------------------------------------------------------
+
+Boards with the BCM4760 SoC shall have the following properties:
+
+Required root node property:
+
+compatible = "brcm,bcm4760";
+
+
+Boards with the BCM4761 SoC shall have the following properties:
+
+Required root node property:
+
+compatible = "brcm,bcm4760", "brcm,bcm4761";

and the dt_mach in the board file is left only with "brcm,bcm4760" until
required otherwise. The same applies to drivers.

Does the order matter? 

> For the patches that go into different directories like the clk
> and the clocksource drivers, please Cc the respective subsystem
> maintainers and ask them for an Ack. It certainly makes sense
> for a new platform port to get merged through the arm-soc tree,
> but any future improvements should normally just go through the
> subsystem trees.

I'd prefer patches but only because I've not any public git repository. If
the git pull is much more preferred, I surely can manage it.

Thanks,
Domenico

[PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: bcm476x: Add platform infrastructure

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 18 October 2012, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 01:48:01PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sunday 14 October 2012, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> +
> +Boards with the BCM4760 SoC shall have the following properties:
> +
> +Required root node property:
> +
> +compatible = "brcm,bcm4760";
> +
> +
> +Boards with the BCM4761 SoC shall have the following properties:
> +
> +Required root node property:
> +
> +compatible = "brcm,bcm4760", "brcm,bcm4761";
> 
> and the dt_mach in the board file is left only with "brcm,bcm4760" until
> required otherwise. The same applies to drivers.

Right.

> Does the order matter? 

Yes, you have to have the most specific one first, and the most generic
one last, as documented in Documentation/devicetree/booting-without-of.txt.

If one chip has a functionality that the other one doesn't but is otherwise
completely compatible, then the less capable one should be put last.

For the root node, you might actually want to keep both "compatible" strings
separate as you have in the version you posted, at least if the chips are
not completely backwards compatible. For the other devices inside of the
soc, just use one.

> > For the patches that go into different directories like the clk
> > and the clocksource drivers, please Cc the respective subsystem
> > maintainers and ask them for an Ack. It certainly makes sense
> > for a new platform port to get merged through the arm-soc tree,
> > but any future improvements should normally just go through the
> > subsystem trees.
> 
> I'd prefer patches but only because I've not any public git repository. If
> the git pull is much more preferred, I surely can manage it.

Ok, no problem. In the long run, it can be useful for you to set up 
your own git tree, for for now, we can manage with patches just fine.

	Arnd