From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mcx: initial support for HTKW mcx board Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2011 16:04:16 -0800 Message-ID: <20111208000416.GT31337@atomide.com> References: <1320797568-11169-1-git-send-email-yanok@emcraft.com> <1320797568-11169-5-git-send-email-yanok@emcraft.com> <20111111001203.GD31337@atomide.com> <4EC17C64.7010409@emcraft.com> <20111119003630.GA31337@atomide.com> <4ECAEAF3.4080708@emcraft.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.66]:51821 "EHLO mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753223Ab1LHAEU (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Dec 2011 19:04:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ECAEAF3.4080708@emcraft.com> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Ilya Yanok Cc: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, wd@denx.de, dzu@denx.de, sasha_d@emcraft.com * Ilya Yanok [111121 15:46]: > Hi Tony, > > On 19.11.2011 04:36, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> Well, it already boots with DT actually. Did you mean booting with DT > >> and board-generic? I have to admit I don't know how to proceed here: > > > > Good to hear you're already playing with it. Yes, let's work on making > > all the boards work with DT and board-generic.. > > Hm, do you think it's absolutely necessary to make everybody work with > board-generic? It will require a lot of additional bindings to get rid > of all machine-specific code. I've just thought that on PowerPC we don't > have such strict rules: if some boards are really similar they share > common machine file but if we need something specific for the new board > we can create it's own machine file. Well ideally yes we would remove the board files completely eventually. But that will take a while, so I can carry your board file in testing-board branch. > >> board-generic initialize twl4030 which we don't have on our board... > >> Could you give me some pointer how I'm supposed to handle this? > > > > .. we should only initialize twl4030/twl6030 if the DT compatible flag > > for it is set. But we're still missing the DT bindings for those :( > > > > For now, maybe try to fix the twl4030 probe so it won't do anything > > unless the I2C device is found? > > That turned to be not such a big problem. Device is not present so we > have tons of error messages but somehow it works. > > The bigger problem is that we have different regulator chip attached. > How am I supposed to register supplies/consumers data with it? Does > anybody working on DT bindings for the regulator framework? Rajendra has posted some regulator DT patches. I believe they have a dependency to the deferred probe patches in many cases though. Regards, Tony