[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/1] am33xx: Update serial platdata to update reg_offset to 0

[Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>]

On 2.3.2016 13:18, Adam Ford wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> wrote:
>> On 2.3.2016 12:09, Adam Ford wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm@ti.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 03:03 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 02:55 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
>>>>>>> With commit: d9a3bec682f9 "dm: ns16550: Add support for reg-offset property"
>>>>>>> reg_offset is added to the struct ns16550_platdata to be
>>>>>>> dt compatible with Linux kernel driver, TI AM335x evms are broken
>>>>>>> as the serial platdata updates wrong offsets. Correcting it with
>>>>>>> initializing reg_offset to zero.
>>>>> Acked-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This will be true for OMAP5+ platforms as well. I guess that array also
>>>>> needs to be updated?
>>>>
>>>> Apart from AM335x, no other platform is converted to DM for non-dt boot,
>>>> so there is no issues with other TI platforms.
>>>
>>> Due to the way the structure was changed, a bunch of omap3 boards
>>> broke because they hard-coded the values expecting them in a certain
>>> order in the structure.  The patch has since been reverted.
>>
>> the patch was reverting just because we are close to release not because
>> the patch is wrong. It will be added again in the merge window.
>> That's why I am asking you to define your structure right with proper
>> assignment or you will deal with this problem pretty soon again.
>> The best all these patches should come to the tree before my patch.
> 
> I wasn't trying to imply there was anything wrong with the patch.  On
> contrary, I was criticizing the hard-coded nature of how the omap3
> boards (and some others) defined it by expecting the data in a certain
> order.  I have submitted a patch to address (what I think are) all but
> the am335x boards.  Since there was already a patch submitted for
> AM35x, so I didn't want to modify the AM335x again.
> 
> I only mentioned the patch was being reverted because someone was
> concerned about the OMAP5+ and I was trying to indicate that there is
> some time to look into it.  Sorry if I didn't come across correctly.

no worries. I just wanted to make it clear because reverting patch is
causing problem for microblaze with uart16550 but now it is better then
break others.

Thanks,
Michal