From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Cousson, Benoit" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/11] ARM: DT: Add support to system control module for OMAP4 Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:52:34 +0200 Message-ID: <4FC76992.1040407@ti.com> References: <1337934361-1606-1-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com> <1337934361-1606-12-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@ti.com> <4FC49BA5.5050008@dev.rtsoft.ru> <4FC5DC9F.7080104@ti.com> <4FC5E2EE.8030504@dev.rtsoft.ru> <4FC5E7DE.2060905@ti.com> <4FC75EA8.6090406@dev.rtsoft.ru> <20120531124958.GD3673@besouro> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120531124958.GD3673@besouro> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: linux-pm-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: eduardo.valentin@ti.com Cc: amit.kucheria@linaro.org, balbi@ti.com, kishon@ti.com, Konstantin Baydarov , linux-pm@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 5/31/2012 2:49 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > Hello, > > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 04:06:00PM +0400, Konstantin Baydarov wrote: >> Hi. >> >> On 05/30/2012 01:26 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: >>> On 5/30/2012 11:05 AM, Konstantin Baydarov wrote: >>>> On 05/30/2012 12:38 PM, Cousson, Benoit wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/2012 11:49 AM, Konstantin Baydarov wrote: >>>>>> Hi, Eduardo. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05/25/2012 12:26 PM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: >>>>>>> This patch add device tree entries on OMAP4 based boards for >>>>>>> System Control Module (SCM). >>> >>> ... >>> >>>>>> I believe that CPU-specific bandgap definition should be moved to >>>>>> bard specific dts. >>>>> >>>>> Mmm, why, since it is CPU specific and not board specific. I has to >>>>> be in the SoC file. >>>> Speaking about omap4430 - omap4430 bandgap differs from omap4460, so >>>> if omap4430 bandgap support will be added to omap-bandgap driver the >>>> version of bandgap should specified in dts file. omap4.dtsi is a >>>> common for omap4 boards, that is why I'm suggesting to move bandgap >>>> description to probably board specific file. >>> >>> OK, I got your point, but in that case we could potentially define a omap4460.dtsi file. >>> >>>> Another solution is to >>>> determine bandgap type in driver probe function, but in that case >>>> "ti,omap4460-bandgap" in omap4.dtsi should be replaced to >>>> "ti,omap4-bandgap". >>> >>> Yes, this is the best solution, but that assume that we can identify the control module version from the HW, which is not necessarily true :-( >>> >>> The IP_REVISION (offset = 0) value are unfortunately not documented, so we should read it to check if they are different from omap4430 and 4460. >>> >>> The bitfield layout in that register is: >>> >>> IP_REV_MAJOR: 8..10 >>> IP_REV_CUSTOM: 6..7 >>> IP_REV_MINOR: 0..5 >> The value of CONTROL_GEN_CORE_REVISION register on my panda board(4430) is: >> CONTROL_GEN_CORE_REVISION: 0x40000900 >> CONTROL_GEN_CORE_HWINFO: 0x0 >> >> Eduardo, could you check CONTROL_GEN_CORE_REVISION on your 4460 board. > > 4460: > [root@(none) ~]# omapconf read 0x4A002000 > 40000A00 > [root@(none) ~]# omapconf read 0x4A002004 > 00000000 > > 4470: > [root@(none) ~]# omapconf read 0x4A002000 > 40000B00 > [root@(none) ~]# omapconf read 0x4A002004 > 00000000 Nice! We do have a cool progression 1 -> 2 -> 3 for each revision. Well at least for the SCM. Benoit