From: LEROY Christophe <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
To: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: David Brownell <dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net,
Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@ru.mvista.com>,
linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi_mpc8xxx: issue with using definition of pram in Device Tree
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 09:20:27 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C9C513B.40501@c-s.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100924071006.GA21318@angua.secretlab.ca>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1618 bytes --]
Hello,
The issue is that cpm_muram_alloc_fixed() allocates memory from the
general purpose muram area (from 0x0 to 0x1bff).
Here we need to return a pointer to the parameter RAM, which is located
somewhere starting at 0x1c00. It is not a dynamic allocation that is
required here but only to point on the correct location in the parameter
RAM.
For the CPM2, I don't know. I'm working with a MPC866.
Attached is a previous discussion on the subject where I explain a bit
more in details the issue.
Regards
C. Leroy
Le 24/09/2010 09:10, Grant Likely a écrit :
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:05:03AM +0200, christophe leroy wrote:
>> This patch applies to 2.6.34.7 and 2.6.35.4
>> It fixes an issue during the probe for CPM1 with definition of parameter ram from DTS
>>
>> Signed-off-by: christophe leroy<christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand the fix from the given description.
> What is the problem, and why is cpm_muram_alloc_fixed() the wrong
> thing to call on CPM1? Does CPM2 still need it?
>
> g.
>
>> diff -urN b/drivers/spi/spi_mpc8xxx.c c/drivers/spi/spi_mpc8xxx.c
>> --- b/drivers/spi/spi_mpc8xxx.c 2010-09-08 16:43:50.000000000 +0200
>> +++ c/drivers/spi/spi_mpc8xxx.c 2010-09-08 16:44:03.000000000 +0200
>> @@ -822,7 +822,7 @@
>> if (!iprop || size != sizeof(*iprop) * 4)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> - spi_base_ofs = cpm_muram_alloc_fixed(iprop[2], 2);
>> + spi_base_ofs = iprop[2];
>> if (IS_ERR_VALUE(spi_base_ofs))
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> @@ -844,7 +844,6 @@
>> return spi_base_ofs;
>> }
>>
>> - cpm_muram_free(spi_base_ofs);
>> return pram_ofs;
>> }
[-- Attachment #2: Message joint --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 6373 bytes --]
From: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>
To: LEROY Christophe <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com>, LinuxPPC-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: Small issue at init with spi_mpc8xxx.c with CPM1
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2010 15:00:38 -0500
Message-ID: <20100907150038.57a7b065@schlenkerla.am.freescale.net>
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 11:17:17 +0200
LEROY Christophe <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> wrote:
>
> Dear Kumar,
>
> I have a small issue in the init of spi_mpc8xxx.c with MPC866 (CPM1)
>
> Unlike cpm_uart that maps the parameter ram directly using
> of_iomap(np,1), spi_mpc8xxx.c uses cpm_muram_alloc_fixed().
>
> This has two impacts in the .dts file:
> * The driver must be declared with pram at 1d80 instead of 3d80 whereas
> it is not a child of muram@2000 but a child of cpm@9c0
> * muram@2000/data@0 must be declared with reg = <0x0 0x2000> whereas
> is should be reg=<0x0 0x1c00> to avoid cpm_muram_alloc() to allocate
> space from parameters ram.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood something ?
Don't make the device tree lie, fix the driver instead.
The allocator should not be given any chunks of muram that are
dedicated to a fixed purpose -- it might hand it out to something else
before you reserve it. I don't think that cpm_muram_alloc_fixed() has
any legitimate use at all.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-09-24 7:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-16 7:05 [PATCH] spi_mpc8xxx: issue with using definition of pram in Device Tree christophe leroy
2010-09-24 7:10 ` Grant Likely
2010-09-24 7:20 ` LEROY Christophe [this message]
2010-09-24 7:57 ` Anton Vorontsov
2010-09-24 15:12 ` Scott Wood
2010-09-24 15:07 ` Scott Wood
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4C9C513B.40501@c-s.fr \
--to=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=avorontsov@ru.mvista.com \
--cc=dbrownell@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).