From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Map SYSRAM address through DT
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:57:35 +0100
Message-ID: <5317496F.5050702@gmail.com>
References: <1392876308-4748-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <CAK9yfHz6wJPdC=DjgaiNOsPHY8k9zaB+p3-ahpwOOcPQtoWEHw@mail.gmail.com> <531725E9.5010307@saftware.de> <CAK9yfHw2adag+J1B=te4QvTG-PMJzvbrMe7NwFZsUGJrJFjmSA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAK9yfHw2adag+J1B=te4QvTG-PMJzvbrMe7NwFZsUGJrJFjmSA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@linaro.org>, Andreas Oberritter <obi@saftware.de>
Cc: "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>, linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org



On 05.03.2014 16:36, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> On 5 March 2014 18:56, Andreas Oberritter <obi@saftware.de> wrote:
>> On 05.03.2014 09:23, Sachin Kamat wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts
>>>> index d2e3f5f5916d..3ca3fb6aa5f4 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts
>>>> @@ -28,6 +28,11 @@
>>>>                  bootargs = "console=ttySAC2,115200N8 root=/dev/mmcblk0p5 rw rootwait earlyprintk panic=5 maxcpus=1";
>>>>          };
>>>>
>>>> +       sysram@02020000 {
>>                    ^
>>>> +               compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-sysram";
>>>> +               reg = <0x02025000 0x1000>;
>>                            ^
>>>> +       };
>>>> +
>>
>> Shouldn't these two addresses match?
>
> Ideally they should. However in this case, this particular board uses
> older revision
> of the SoC which has a different register address. I did not want to
> create a compatible
> string just for this (exceptional) case alone and hence did it this
> way to override the reg. address.
> Other option was not to have the register address in the node name.

What about overriding status of sysram@02020000 node to "disabled" and 
adding a new sysram@02025000 node in universal C210 dts?

However, I'm still a bit concerned about using such platform and 
use-case specific compatible strings here. SYSRAM is basically a normal 
SRAM memory and usually just some specific areas of it are reserved for 
special purposes.

Best regards,
Tomasz