Re: [PATCH 00/04] PCI: rcar: Driver model and physical address space update

[Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk>]

On 05/02/14 09:40, Magnus Damm wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 05/02/14 09:00, Magnus Damm wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Ben,
>>
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> I think we should try to pick out the stuff that is ready to be merged
>>> first. I think these patches may require a bit of time before people
>>> start looking at them. I don't mind resending in the future.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I have not been paying too much attention to other
>>> patches including yours - been focused trying to get the memory
>>> management part right.. So I'd like to focus on correctness over DT
>>> for now if possible. Of course we it all.
>>>
>>> Would it be possible for you to provide a list of pci-rcar-gen2.c
>>> patches that you posted? Or perhaps you can resend your series and
>>> include acks that you received?
>>
>>
>> I don't think I have any acks, only review comments. I think the code
>> itself is pretty much ready to be merged and has been tested here with
>> the Lager board.
>
> Ok, thanks. I'd like to go through them myself if possible. I was
> looking for a cover letter or something that listed the patches but I
> can't seem to find it. Can you please provide a list?

I will re-send the patches once I've applied the relevant fixups from
the last round, hopefully within the next few hours.

>> The big issue for us is that we /must/ boot with fdt, which means the
>> less fdt support that is in the kernel then the more patches we end up
>> carrying out of tree. This is why we have been pushing patches out to
>> try and get the support in.
>
> Can you please define "boot with fdt"? As you probably know, both
> board-lager.c and board-lager-reference.c boot with DT. I suppose you
> mean that you want DT to describe the entire system, with no C code
> for the board? Please note that some devices like timers still don't
> use DT, so if you can live without those then... =)

We currently have enough to use the system. And yes, we boot with
board-lager-reference.c which current seems to be turning up bugs
in the up-stream (see the recent new bug with cpg clock code reported
by my colleague).

Due to issues out of our control we can test with board-lager.c but
we must use the board-lager-reference.c for actual product test. The
only way we found around this is ugly hacking of the core driver code
to link platform and fdt devices...

-- 
Ben Dooks				http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer				Codethink - Providing Genius