From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.nawrocki@samsung.com (Sylwester Nawrocki) Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 11:36:43 +0900 Subject: [PATCH/RFC 2/3] ARM: S5PV310: Add a platform helper for MIPI DSIM/CSIS setup In-Reply-To: <020401cbb2c1$ef9f7c30$cede7490$%kim@samsung.com> References: <1294153764-25006-1-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <1294153764-25006-3-git-send-email-s.nawrocki@samsung.com> <020401cbb2c1$ef9f7c30$cede7490$%kim@samsung.com> Message-ID: <4D2E653B.4090502@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/13/2011 10:33 AM, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> >> MIPI_PHYn_CONTROL registers are shared between MIPI DSIM >> and MIPI CSIS drivers so a spinlock is used to protect multiple >> access to these registers. Also a proper state of a common >> PHY enable bit is maintained in order to avoid a DSIM >> and CSIS driver conflict. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki >> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park >> --- ... > > Basically, it's not good that each machine(SoC) has each own setup-mipi... > Because it is very similar(almost same)...means can move it in plat-s5p with > following. > > 1. # of MIPI PHY can be calculated by platform device id > 2. can use same definition of MIPI PHY control address with same name > re-mapping. Yes, I agree with that. Originally I had it done it plat-s5p, I will prepare a merged version. The main difference between s5pv210 and s5pv310 indeed was the register naming and placement in PMU or CLK subsystem, so the register address definitions were in regs-clk.h or regs-pmu.h. So there just will have to be included different header files depending on on SoC architecture. Regards, -- Sylwester Nawrocki Samsung Poland R&D Center