[U-Boot] [PATCH] OMAP5: Add support for the SOM5_EVB board (OMAP5430-based)

[Lubomir Popov <lpopov@mm-sol.com>]

Hi Tom,

On 14/05/13 17:52, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:24:41PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote:
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> I'm currently busy with other work; on the other hand, careful
>> rebasing shall require some time, especially the Palmas stuff.
>> What would be the deadline for a V2 submission?
>>
>> Meanwhile could you please have a look at the (already old)
>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/232743/? A simple patch,
>> shall be needed if we enable USB (for the uEVM along with
>> our board). In general, what are your plans regarding USB
>> (.../patch/232742/)?
> 
> Thanks for the reminder, I'll grab 232743 soon.  232742 looks OK, but do
> you have a patch around for uEVM still?
Not yet (didn't have the opportunity to test, although some uEVMs should
be around at MMS). As you know, a patch shall be needed in the uEVM board
file along with the common USB stuff.
> 
>> And again on I2C (.../patch/233823/): what is you final
>> opinion? I'm confident that this patch is a major improvement
>> for OMAP4/5 at least.
> 
> I'm inclined to go with it, just need to mentally unswap the i2c notes
> in my brain and think it over one more time.
Just applied 233823 to current u-boot-ti master. Works fine.
> 
> [snip]
>>>>>> +	 * TODO: Replace this ugly hardcoding with proper defines +
>>>>>> */ +	writel(0x0100, 0x4ae0a310);
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, do please.
>>>> This should be (*scrm)->auxclk0. The problem is that the
>>>> omap5_scrm_regs struct (holding the auxclk0 member) has to be
>>>> defined somewhere in the common OMAP5 headers. Sricharan? Or should
>>>> I hack around?
>>>
>>> Add it to the most likely struct in the headers.
>> The entire struct (I call it omap5_scrm_regs in theory, similar to the
>> corresponding omap4_scrm_regs for OMAP4) is not defined anywhere. Of
>> course I could define only the member that I need, but I guess it is
>> a (responsible) TI job to define hardware descriptors. Or I'm wrong?
>> Please advise. If I have time, I could do it myself - it's some 27
>> registers, almost identical to the OMAP4, and should go into 
>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-omap5/clocks.h.
> 
> Whomever uses / needs it should do it.  I gave the TRM a quick read and
> I don't see any conflicts per-se just some reserved areas being named
> and vice versa.  So rename it to omap_scrm_regs and move to
> <asm/omap_common.h>.  Thanks!
I would argue that this is not very appropriate. Those regs that are
reserved on the OMAP5 are related to altclkscr and auxclk5 on the OMAP4;
on the other hand the OMAP5 has some modem clock regs that are reserved
on OMAP4. We shall probably have ugly #ifdefs again. And what about OMAP3
and below?

Currently the scrm struct is defined for OMAP4 in the asm/arch-omap4/clocks.h
file and I have already done the same for OMAP5 by analogy. I must admit
however that this approach does not correspond to the latest way by which
groups of OMAP hardware regs are defined, prcm in particular - a struct in
omap_common.h, holding only the required regs, no padding and such garbage,
and an init with the physical addresses in a .c file for the particular SoC
(prcm-regs.c). But still the Panda board, for example, uses the old way for
scrm. Therefore I did it the same for OMAP5, which was easier (I'm old and
lazy ;) ).

Otherwise (a struct in omap_common.h) we shall need new scrm-regs.c files for
every OMAP flavor. Which way to go?

Regards,
Lubo