From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@bootlin.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Wed, 2 May 2018 13:54:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH net-next v2 15/15] arm64: dts: allwinner: a64: add SRAM controller device tree node In-Reply-To: <29E5670C-9D17-4EC1-AAAC-0CF33DD0534C@aosc.io> References: <20180501161227.2110-1-wens@csie.org> <20180501161227.2110-16-wens@csie.org> <20180502095118.rqnfwy576xh6ercm@flea> <29E5670C-9D17-4EC1-AAAC-0CF33DD0534C@aosc.io> Message-ID: <20180502115437.zlu2rafrguufutvp@flea> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 06:19:51PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > ? 2018?5?2? GMT+08:00 ??5:53:21, Chen-Yu Tsai ??: > >On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Maxime Ripard > > wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:12:27AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: > >>> From: Icenowy Zheng > >>> > >>> Allwinner A64 has a SRAM controller, and in the device tree > >currently > >>> we have a syscon node to enable EMAC driver to access the EMAC clock > >>> register. As SRAM controller driver can now export regmap for this > >>> register, replace the syscon node to the SRAM controller device > >node, > >>> and let EMAC driver to acquire its EMAC clock regmap. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng > >>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi | 23 > >+++++++++++++++---- > >>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi > >b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi > >>> index 1b2ef28c42bd..1c37659d9d41 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi > >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi > >>> @@ -168,10 +168,25 @@ > >>> #size-cells = <1>; > >>> ranges; > >>> > >>> - syscon: syscon at 1c00000 { > >>> - compatible = > >"allwinner,sun50i-a64-system-controller", > >>> - "syscon"; > >>> + sram_controller: sram-controller at 1c00000 { > >>> + compatible = > >"allwinner,sun50i-a64-sram-controller"; > >> > >> I don't think there's anything preventing us from keeping the > >> -system-controller compatible. It's what was in the DT before, and > >> it's how it's called in the datasheet. > > > >I actually meant to ask you about this. The -system-controller > >compatible matches the datasheet better. Maybe we should just > >switch to that one? > > No, if we do the switch the system-controller compatible, > the device will be probed on the same memory region with > a syscon on old DTs. The device hasn't magically changed either. Maybe we just need to add a check to make sure we don't have the syscon compatible in the SRAM driver probe so that the double driver issue doesn't happen? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: