From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2on0140.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E7491A0272 for ; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:00:39 +1100 (AEDT) Message-ID: <1427756416.22867.205.camel@freescale.com> Subject: Re: [1/4] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add device tree support for T1024/T1023 SoC From: Scott Wood To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685 Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:00:16 -0500 In-Reply-To: References: <1422517947-28722-1-git-send-email-Shengzhou.Liu@freescale.com> <20150130011949.GA19864@home.buserror.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2015-03-30 at 06:08 -0500, Liu Shengzhou-B36685 wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wood Scott-B07421 > > Sent: Friday, January 30, 2015 9:20 AM > > To: Liu Shengzhou-B36685 > > Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org > > Subject: Re: [1/4] powerpc/fsl-booke: Add device tree support for > > T1024/T1023 SoC > > > > On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:52:24PM +0800, Shengzhou Liu wrote: > > > + corenet-cf@18000 { > > > + compatible = "fsl,corenet2-cf"; > > > > While the damage has already been done by the t1040 device tree, this is > > not 100% compatible with what's on t4240. I'm not sure if it's worth > > doing anything about it at this point, given that you can tell the > > difference by the version register even though that register is reserved > > on t4240 and simliar chips, which is what I do in > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/419911/ > > Now here "fsl,corenet2-cf" is suitable for t1024 after your t1040 patch was merged. > T1024 and t1040 have the same version of ccf. I wouldn't call it "suitable", just that there's a workaround for existing badness. > > > +/include/ "t1023si-post.dtsi" > > > +&soc { > > > + display:display@180000 { > > > + compatible = "fsl,t1024-diu", "fsl,diu"; > > > + reg = <0x180000 1000>; > > > + interrupts = <74 2 0 0>; > > > + }; > > > +}; > > > > There are other differences between t1023 an t1024. Where do you > > describe t1024's QE? Where do you describe the DDR and IFC differences? > > can they be detected at runtime? t1024 supports deep sleep, but t1023 > > doesn't -- yet you label both chips as having t1024 rcpm. > > > As QE IP block has not been upstream yet, Huh? arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/ > so have to removed QE info in dts currently(same on t1040), That's not how it works. > DDR and IFC differences are in u-boot, not in dts. The differences are in hardware, which is what the dts is supposed to describe. > Both t1023 and t1024 support sleep, so label both chips as having t1024 rcpm. That's not how it works. > Only t1024 has deep sleep, the difference is identified in *.c not in dts (confirmed with deep sleep owner). Even if the C code chooses to use SVR to identify the difference (why?), that doesn't mean it's OK for the device tree to contain wrong information. -Scott