* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 @ 2016-07-08 2:45 Kever Yang 2016-07-08 3:44 ` Ziyuan Xu 2016-07-09 14:39 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Kever Yang @ 2016-07-08 2:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> --- drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ #include <syscon.h> #include <asm/io.h> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> +#endif #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> #include <power/regulator.h> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; struct rk_pwm_priv { struct rk3288_pwm *regs; +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 struct rk3288_grf *grf; +#endif }; static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint period_ns, @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice *dev) struct regmap *map; priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); if (IS_ERR(map)) return PTR_ERR(map); priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); +#endif return 0; } static int rk_pwm_probe(struct udevice *dev) { +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 struct rk_pwm_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); rk_setreg(&priv->grf->soc_con2, 1 << 0); +#endif return 0; } -- 1.9.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-08 2:45 [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 Kever Yang @ 2016-07-08 3:44 ` Ziyuan Xu 2016-07-09 14:39 ` Simon Glass 1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Ziyuan Xu @ 2016-07-08 3:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot On 2016?07?08? 10:45, Kever Yang wrote: > The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like > RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a > MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. > > Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 Superfluous Change-Id. > Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> > --- > drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > #include <syscon.h> > #include <asm/io.h> > #include <asm/arch/clock.h> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> > #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> > +#endif > #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> > #include <power/regulator.h> > > @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > > struct rk_pwm_priv { > struct rk3288_pwm *regs; > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > struct rk3288_grf *grf; > +#endif > }; > > static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint period_ns, > @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice *dev) > struct regmap *map; > > priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); > if (IS_ERR(map)) > return PTR_ERR(map); > priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); > +#endif > > return 0; > } > > static int rk_pwm_probe(struct udevice *dev) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > struct rk_pwm_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); > > rk_setreg(&priv->grf->soc_con2, 1 << 0); > +#endif > > return 0; > } ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-08 2:45 [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 Kever Yang 2016-07-08 3:44 ` Ziyuan Xu @ 2016-07-09 14:39 ` Simon Glass 2016-07-11 6:58 ` Kever Yang 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2016-07-09 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Kever, On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: > The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like > RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a > MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. > > Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 patman will automatically remove these for you. > Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> > --- > drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 > --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > #include <syscon.h> > #include <asm/io.h> > #include <asm/arch/clock.h> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> > #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> > +#endif > #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> > #include <power/regulator.h> > > @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > > struct rk_pwm_priv { > struct rk3288_pwm *regs; > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > struct rk3288_grf *grf; > +#endif > }; > > static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint period_ns, > @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice *dev) > struct regmap *map; > > priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); > if (IS_ERR(map)) > return PTR_ERR(map); > priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); > +#endif I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. What do you think? > > return 0; > } > > static int rk_pwm_probe(struct udevice *dev) > { > +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > struct rk_pwm_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); > > rk_setreg(&priv->grf->soc_con2, 1 << 0); > +#endif > > return 0; > } > -- > 1.9.1 > > Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-09 14:39 ` Simon Glass @ 2016-07-11 6:58 ` Kever Yang 2016-07-11 23:54 ` Simon Glass 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Kever Yang @ 2016-07-11 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Simon, On 07/09/2016 10:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Kever, > > On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >> The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like >> RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a >> MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. >> >> Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 > patman will automatically remove these for you. Will use patman for my new patches later, thanks. > >> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> >> --- >> drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >> index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 >> --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >> +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >> @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ >> #include <syscon.h> >> #include <asm/io.h> >> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >> #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> >> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> >> +#endif >> #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> >> #include <power/regulator.h> >> >> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >> >> struct rk_pwm_priv { >> struct rk3288_pwm *regs; >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >> struct rk3288_grf *grf; >> +#endif >> }; >> >> static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint period_ns, >> @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice *dev) >> struct regmap *map; >> >> priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >> map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); >> if (IS_ERR(map)) >> return PTR_ERR(map); >> priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); >> +#endif > I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then > perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC > code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. > > Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct > containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, > and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. > > What do you think? Every Rockchip soc have grf, and maybe sgrf, pmugrf which much like grf. The content in grf are very different for different SoC, it gathers all kinds of system/module control registers . Back to the grf setting for pwm, this control operation is only need in RK3288, not in RK3399 and new SoC further. so I think the '#ifdef' is better to stay in driver file like rk_pwm.c. For these system control registers, I'm sure the dedicate general soc.c is needed, because they are not so common for different module and different Soc. We are not able to have a common framework for them, a general soc.c won't help much except all the system control are gather in one file . I think the GRF setting is part of the module and driver, so we can leave it as it is, and a simple syscon driver is enough for grf like what is kernel do. Thanks, - Kever > >> return 0; >> } >> >> static int rk_pwm_probe(struct udevice *dev) >> { >> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >> struct rk_pwm_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); >> >> rk_setreg(&priv->grf->soc_con2, 1 << 0); >> +#endif >> >> return 0; >> } >> -- >> 1.9.1 >> >> > Regards, > Simon > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-11 6:58 ` Kever Yang @ 2016-07-11 23:54 ` Simon Glass 2016-07-12 2:45 ` Kever Yang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2016-07-11 23:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Kever, On 11 July 2016 at 00:58, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On 07/09/2016 10:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Kever, >> >> On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>> >>> The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like >>> RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a >>> MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. >>> >>> Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 >> >> patman will automatically remove these for you. > > Will use patman for my new patches later, thanks. > >> >>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>> index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>> @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ >>> #include <syscon.h> >>> #include <asm/io.h> >>> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>> #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> >>> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> >>> +#endif >>> #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> >>> #include <power/regulator.h> >>> >>> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>> >>> struct rk_pwm_priv { >>> struct rk3288_pwm *regs; >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>> struct rk3288_grf *grf; >>> +#endif >>> }; >>> >>> static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint >>> period_ns, >>> @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice >>> *dev) >>> struct regmap *map; >>> >>> priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>> map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); >>> if (IS_ERR(map)) >>> return PTR_ERR(map); >>> priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); >>> +#endif >> >> I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then >> perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC >> code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. >> >> Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct >> containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, >> and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. >> >> What do you think? > > Every Rockchip soc have grf, and maybe sgrf, pmugrf which much like > grf. The content in grf are very different for different SoC, it gathers > all kinds of system/module control registers . > Back to the grf setting for pwm, this control operation is only need in > RK3288, not in RK3399 and new SoC further. so I think the '#ifdef' is > better to stay in driver file like rk_pwm.c. > > For these system control registers, I'm sure the dedicate general soc.c is > needed, because they are not so common for different module and different > Soc. We are not able to have a common framework for them, a general soc.c > won't help much except all the system control are gather in one file . > > I think the GRF setting is part of the module and driver, so we can leave it > as it is, > and a simple syscon driver is enough for grf like what is kernel do. I looked quickly at the Linux pwm driver but I don't see any grf access there. How does the grf register get set in Linux? I really want to avoid SoC-specific #ifdefs in drivers. > > Thanks, > - Kever > >> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> static int rk_pwm_probe(struct udevice *dev) >>> { >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>> struct rk_pwm_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); >>> >>> rk_setreg(&priv->grf->soc_con2, 1 << 0); >>> +#endif >>> >>> return 0; >>> } >>> -- >>> 1.9.1 >>> >>> >> Regards, >> Simon >> >> >> > > Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-11 23:54 ` Simon Glass @ 2016-07-12 2:45 ` Kever Yang 2016-07-12 13:12 ` Simon Glass 2016-07-29 4:46 ` Doug Anderson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Kever Yang @ 2016-07-12 2:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Simon, CC Doug for this topic. On 07/12/2016 07:54 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Kever, > > On 11 July 2016 at 00:58, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> On 07/09/2016 10:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Kever, >>> >>> On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>> The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like >>>> RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a >>>> MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. >>>> >>>> Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 >>> patman will automatically remove these for you. >> Will use patman for my new patches later, thanks. >> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>> index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>> @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ >>>> #include <syscon.h> >>>> #include <asm/io.h> >>>> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>> #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> >>>> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> >>>> +#endif >>>> #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> >>>> #include <power/regulator.h> >>>> >>>> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>>> >>>> struct rk_pwm_priv { >>>> struct rk3288_pwm *regs; >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>> struct rk3288_grf *grf; >>>> +#endif >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint >>>> period_ns, >>>> @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice >>>> *dev) >>>> struct regmap *map; >>>> >>>> priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>> map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); >>>> if (IS_ERR(map)) >>>> return PTR_ERR(map); >>>> priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); >>>> +#endif >>> I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then >>> perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC >>> code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. >>> >>> Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct >>> containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, >>> and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. >>> >>> What do you think? >> Every Rockchip soc have grf, and maybe sgrf, pmugrf which much like >> grf. The content in grf are very different for different SoC, it gathers >> all kinds of system/module control registers . >> Back to the grf setting for pwm, this control operation is only need in >> RK3288, not in RK3399 and new SoC further. so I think the '#ifdef' is >> better to stay in driver file like rk_pwm.c. >> >> For these system control registers, I'm sure the dedicate general soc.c is >> needed, because they are not so common for different module and different >> Soc. We are not able to have a common framework for them, a general soc.c >> won't help much except all the system control are gather in one file . >> >> I think the GRF setting is part of the module and driver, so we can leave it >> as it is, >> and a simple syscon driver is enough for grf like what is kernel do. > I looked quickly at the Linux pwm driver but I don't see any grf > access there. How does the grf register get set in Linux? I really > want to avoid SoC-specific #ifdefs in drivers. Doug(in cc list) send the patch for this pwm setting, but it seems does not accept by upstream, I think people also don't like this grf access in driver and prefer this kind of one time init operation to be done in bootloader. patchset 1 implement in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280064.html patchset 4 implement in drivers/pwm_rockchip.c http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280715.html Hi Doug, Do you have any suggestion here? Thanks, - Kever > >> Thanks, >> - Kever >> >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> static int rk_pwm_probe(struct udevice *dev) >>>> { >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>> struct rk_pwm_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(dev); >>>> >>>> rk_setreg(&priv->grf->soc_con2, 1 << 0); >>>> +#endif >>>> >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> -- >>>> 1.9.1 >>>> >>>> >>> Regards, >>> Simon >>> >>> >>> >> > Regards, > Simon > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-12 2:45 ` Kever Yang @ 2016-07-12 13:12 ` Simon Glass 2016-07-29 2:55 ` Kever Yang 2016-07-29 4:46 ` Doug Anderson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Simon Glass @ 2016-07-12 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Kever, On 11 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > CC Doug for this topic. > > > On 07/12/2016 07:54 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Kever, >> >> On 11 July 2016 at 00:58, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> On 07/09/2016 10:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Kever, >>>> >>>> On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like >>>>> RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a >>>>> MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. >>>>> >>>>> Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 >>>> >>>> patman will automatically remove these for you. >>> >>> Will use patman for my new patches later, thanks. >>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>> index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>> @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ >>>>> #include <syscon.h> >>>>> #include <asm/io.h> >>>>> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>> #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> >>>>> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> >>>>> +#endif >>>>> #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> >>>>> #include <power/regulator.h> >>>>> >>>>> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>>>> >>>>> struct rk_pwm_priv { >>>>> struct rk3288_pwm *regs; >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>> struct rk3288_grf *grf; >>>>> +#endif >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint >>>>> period_ns, >>>>> @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice >>>>> *dev) >>>>> struct regmap *map; >>>>> >>>>> priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>> map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); >>>>> if (IS_ERR(map)) >>>>> return PTR_ERR(map); >>>>> priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); >>>>> +#endif >>>> >>>> I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then >>>> perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC >>>> code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. >>>> >>>> Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct >>>> containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, >>>> and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> Every Rockchip soc have grf, and maybe sgrf, pmugrf which much like >>> grf. The content in grf are very different for different SoC, it gathers >>> all kinds of system/module control registers . >>> Back to the grf setting for pwm, this control operation is only need in >>> RK3288, not in RK3399 and new SoC further. so I think the '#ifdef' is >>> better to stay in driver file like rk_pwm.c. >>> >>> For these system control registers, I'm sure the dedicate general soc.c >>> is >>> needed, because they are not so common for different module and different >>> Soc. We are not able to have a common framework for them, a general soc.c >>> won't help much except all the system control are gather in one file . >>> >>> I think the GRF setting is part of the module and driver, so we can leave >>> it >>> as it is, >>> and a simple syscon driver is enough for grf like what is kernel do. >> >> I looked quickly at the Linux pwm driver but I don't see any grf >> access there. How does the grf register get set in Linux? I really >> want to avoid SoC-specific #ifdefs in drivers. > > Doug(in cc list) send the patch for this pwm setting, but it seems does not > accept by upstream, > I think people also don't like this grf access in driver and prefer this > kind of one time init operation > to be done in bootloader. > patchset 1 implement in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280064.html > patchset 4 implement in drivers/pwm_rockchip.c > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280715.html > > Hi Doug, > Do you have any suggestion here? I think the device_is_compatible() idea would work OK for U-Boot if you want to do that. It's the CONFIG I want to avoid in the driver. Regards, Simon ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-12 13:12 ` Simon Glass @ 2016-07-29 2:55 ` Kever Yang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Kever Yang @ 2016-07-29 2:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi Simon, On 07/12/2016 09:12 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Kever, > > On 11 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >> Hi Simon, >> >> CC Doug for this topic. >> >> >> On 07/12/2016 07:54 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Kever, >>> >>> On 11 July 2016 at 00:58, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Simon, >>>> >>>> On 07/09/2016 10:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi Kever, >>>>> >>>>> On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>>>> The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like >>>>>> RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a >>>>>> MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. >>>>>> >>>>>> Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 >>>>> patman will automatically remove these for you. >>>> Will use patman for my new patches later, thanks. >>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>>> index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 >>>>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>>> @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ >>>>>> #include <syscon.h> >>>>>> #include <asm/io.h> >>>>>> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>>> #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> >>>>>> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> >>>>>> +#endif >>>>>> #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> >>>>>> #include <power/regulator.h> >>>>>> >>>>>> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>>>>> >>>>>> struct rk_pwm_priv { >>>>>> struct rk3288_pwm *regs; >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>>> struct rk3288_grf *grf; >>>>>> +#endif >>>>>> }; >>>>>> >>>>>> static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint >>>>>> period_ns, >>>>>> @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice >>>>>> *dev) >>>>>> struct regmap *map; >>>>>> >>>>>> priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); >>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>>> map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); >>>>>> if (IS_ERR(map)) >>>>>> return PTR_ERR(map); >>>>>> priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); >>>>>> +#endif >>>>> I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then >>>>> perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC >>>>> code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. >>>>> >>>>> Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct >>>>> containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, >>>>> and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>> Every Rockchip soc have grf, and maybe sgrf, pmugrf which much like >>>> grf. The content in grf are very different for different SoC, it gathers >>>> all kinds of system/module control registers . >>>> Back to the grf setting for pwm, this control operation is only need in >>>> RK3288, not in RK3399 and new SoC further. so I think the '#ifdef' is >>>> better to stay in driver file like rk_pwm.c. >>>> >>>> For these system control registers, I'm sure the dedicate general soc.c >>>> is >>>> needed, because they are not so common for different module and different >>>> Soc. We are not able to have a common framework for them, a general soc.c >>>> won't help much except all the system control are gather in one file . Which entry for soc init in general soc.c is reasonable? I prefer as early as possible, because I want to do the clock init at the same place, how about board_early_init_f() or arch_cpu_init()? >>>> >>>> I think the GRF setting is part of the module and driver, so we can leave >>>> it >>>> as it is, >>>> and a simple syscon driver is enough for grf like what is kernel do. >>> I looked quickly at the Linux pwm driver but I don't see any grf >>> access there. How does the grf register get set in Linux? I really >>> want to avoid SoC-specific #ifdefs in drivers. >> Doug(in cc list) send the patch for this pwm setting, but it seems does not >> accept by upstream, >> I think people also don't like this grf access in driver and prefer this >> kind of one time init operation >> to be done in bootloader. >> patchset 1 implement in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280064.html >> patchset 4 implement in drivers/pwm_rockchip.c >> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280715.html >> >> Hi Doug, >> Do you have any suggestion here? > I think the device_is_compatible() idea would work OK for U-Boot if > you want to do that. It's the CONFIG I want to avoid in the driver. The compatible in rk3399.dtsi for pwm is: compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-pwm", "rockchip,rk3288-pwm"; So I would like to consider this setting as a SoC general setting in a SoC file, instead of setting in pwm driver, because there might be other setting for other module need us to fix in soc.c. Thanks, - Kever > > Regards, > Simon > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-12 2:45 ` Kever Yang 2016-07-12 13:12 ` Simon Glass @ 2016-07-29 4:46 ` Doug Anderson 2016-09-21 22:01 ` Heiko Stübner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Doug Anderson @ 2016-07-29 4:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi, On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > CC Doug for this topic. > > > On 07/12/2016 07:54 AM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> Hi Kever, >> >> On 11 July 2016 at 00:58, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Simon, >>> >>> On 07/09/2016 10:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Kever, >>>> >>>> On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like >>>>> RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a >>>>> MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. >>>>> >>>>> Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 >>>> >>>> patman will automatically remove these for you. >>> >>> Will use patman for my new patches later, thanks. >>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>> index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c >>>>> @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ >>>>> #include <syscon.h> >>>>> #include <asm/io.h> >>>>> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>> #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> >>>>> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> >>>>> +#endif >>>>> #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> >>>>> #include <power/regulator.h> >>>>> >>>>> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>>>> >>>>> struct rk_pwm_priv { >>>>> struct rk3288_pwm *regs; >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>> struct rk3288_grf *grf; >>>>> +#endif >>>>> }; >>>>> >>>>> static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, uint >>>>> period_ns, >>>>> @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct udevice >>>>> *dev) >>>>> struct regmap *map; >>>>> >>>>> priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 >>>>> map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); >>>>> if (IS_ERR(map)) >>>>> return PTR_ERR(map); >>>>> priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); >>>>> +#endif >>>> >>>> I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then >>>> perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC >>>> code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. >>>> >>>> Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct >>>> containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, >>>> and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>> >>> Every Rockchip soc have grf, and maybe sgrf, pmugrf which much like >>> grf. The content in grf are very different for different SoC, it gathers >>> all kinds of system/module control registers . >>> Back to the grf setting for pwm, this control operation is only need in >>> RK3288, not in RK3399 and new SoC further. so I think the '#ifdef' is >>> better to stay in driver file like rk_pwm.c. >>> >>> For these system control registers, I'm sure the dedicate general soc.c >>> is >>> needed, because they are not so common for different module and different >>> Soc. We are not able to have a common framework for them, a general soc.c >>> won't help much except all the system control are gather in one file . >>> >>> I think the GRF setting is part of the module and driver, so we can leave >>> it >>> as it is, >>> and a simple syscon driver is enough for grf like what is kernel do. >> >> I looked quickly at the Linux pwm driver but I don't see any grf >> access there. How does the grf register get set in Linux? I really >> want to avoid SoC-specific #ifdefs in drivers. > > Doug(in cc list) send the patch for this pwm setting, but it seems does not > accept by upstream, > I think people also don't like this grf access in driver and prefer this > kind of one time init operation > to be done in bootloader. > patchset 1 implement in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280064.html > patchset 4 implement in drivers/pwm_rockchip.c > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280715.html > > Hi Doug, > Do you have any suggestion here? Heiko will skin me for suggesting it, but one option would be to consider this as a pinmux thing in the linux kernel. The GRF can choose between two IP blocks internally: the old PWM IP block or the new PWM IP block. ;) I believe the other option is to handle atop Heiko's patches: 9131959 New [1/3] dt-bindings: add used but undocumented rockchip grf compatible values 9131963 New [2/3] soc: rockchip: add driver handling grf setup 9131957 New [3/3] ARM: rockchip: drop rk3288 jtag/mmc switch handling I believe Heiko's patches implement the "grf subclass" talked about in <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4738311/>. -Doug ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 2016-07-29 4:46 ` Doug Anderson @ 2016-09-21 22:01 ` Heiko Stübner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Heiko Stübner @ 2016-09-21 22:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: u-boot Hi, Am Donnerstag, 28. Juli 2016, 21:46:04 schrieb Doug Anderson: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: > > Hi Simon, > > > > CC Doug for this topic. > > > > On 07/12/2016 07:54 AM, Simon Glass wrote: > >> Hi Kever, > >> > >> On 11 July 2016 at 00:58, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: > >>> Hi Simon, > >>> > >>> On 07/09/2016 10:39 PM, Simon Glass wrote: > >>>> Hi Kever, > >>>> > >>>> On 7 July 2016 at 20:45, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote: > >>>>> The grf setting for rkpwm is only need in rk3288, other SoCs like > >>>>> RK3399 which also use rkpwm do not need set the grf, let's add a > >>>>> MACRO to make the code only for RK3288. > >>>>> > >>>>> Change-Id: I167a4e8cf925e840d4bbbcfb1437aaed52b81477 > >>>> > >>>> patman will automatically remove these for you. > >>> > >>> Will use patman for my new patches later, thanks. > >>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> > >>>>> drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c | 8 ++++++++ > >>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > >>>>> index 2d289a4..e34adf0 100644 > >>>>> --- a/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > >>>>> +++ b/drivers/pwm/rk_pwm.c > >>>>> @@ -13,8 +13,10 @@ > >>>>> > >>>>> #include <syscon.h> > >>>>> #include <asm/io.h> > >>>>> #include <asm/arch/clock.h> > >>>>> > >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > >>>>> > >>>>> #include <asm/arch/cru_rk3288.h> > >>>>> #include <asm/arch/grf_rk3288.h> > >>>>> > >>>>> +#endif > >>>>> > >>>>> #include <asm/arch/pwm.h> > >>>>> #include <power/regulator.h> > >>>>> > >>>>> @@ -22,7 +24,9 @@ DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; > >>>>> > >>>>> struct rk_pwm_priv { > >>>>> > >>>>> struct rk3288_pwm *regs; > >>>>> > >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > >>>>> > >>>>> struct rk3288_grf *grf; > >>>>> > >>>>> +#endif > >>>>> > >>>>> }; > >>>>> > >>>>> static int rk_pwm_set_config(struct udevice *dev, uint channel, > >>>>> uint > >>>>> > >>>>> period_ns, > >>>>> @@ -65,19 +69,23 @@ static int rk_pwm_ofdata_to_platdata(struct > >>>>> udevice > >>>>> *dev) > >>>>> > >>>>> struct regmap *map; > >>>>> > >>>>> priv->regs = (struct rk3288_pwm *)dev_get_addr(dev); > >>>>> > >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288 > >>>>> > >>>>> map = syscon_get_regmap_by_driver_data(ROCKCHIP_SYSCON_GRF); > >>>>> if (IS_ERR(map)) > >>>>> > >>>>> return PTR_ERR(map); > >>>>> > >>>>> priv->grf = regmap_get_range(map, 0); > >>>>> > >>>>> +#endif > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to find a better way. Do all chips have a grf? If so then > >>>> perhaps we can have a function like grf_enable_pwm() in the core SoC > >>>> code and call it here. The #ifdef can be there. > >>>> > >>>> Or perhaps we should have a general soc.c, with its own struct > >>>> containing pointers to grf, sgrf, etc. It can be set up at the start, > >>>> and then provide a soc_enable_pwm() function to enable the pwm. > >>>> > >>>> What do you think? > >>> > >>> Every Rockchip soc have grf, and maybe sgrf, pmugrf which much like > >>> grf. The content in grf are very different for different SoC, it gathers > >>> all kinds of system/module control registers . > >>> Back to the grf setting for pwm, this control operation is only need in > >>> RK3288, not in RK3399 and new SoC further. so I think the '#ifdef' is > >>> better to stay in driver file like rk_pwm.c. > >>> > >>> For these system control registers, I'm sure the dedicate general soc.c > >>> is > >>> needed, because they are not so common for different module and > >>> different > >>> Soc. We are not able to have a common framework for them, a general > >>> soc.c > >>> won't help much except all the system control are gather in one file . > >>> > >>> I think the GRF setting is part of the module and driver, so we can > >>> leave > >>> it > >>> as it is, > >>> and a simple syscon driver is enough for grf like what is kernel do. > >> > >> I looked quickly at the Linux pwm driver but I don't see any grf > >> access there. How does the grf register get set in Linux? I really > >> want to avoid SoC-specific #ifdefs in drivers. > > > > Doug(in cc list) send the patch for this pwm setting, but it seems does > > not > > accept by upstream, > > I think people also don't like this grf access in driver and prefer this > > kind of one time init operation > > to be done in bootloader. > > patchset 1 implement in arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280064.h > > tml patchset 4 implement in drivers/pwm_rockchip.c > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-August/280715.h > > tml > > > > Hi Doug, > > > > Do you have any suggestion here? > > Heiko will skin me for suggesting it, but one option would be to > consider this as a pinmux thing in the linux kernel. The GRF can > choose between two IP blocks internally: the old PWM IP block or the > new PWM IP block. ;) somehow this mail slipped through the cracks in my inbox :-( . But anyway, compared to the uart-discussion we're having elsewhere, I can somehow see how this might be viewed as pinctrl, simply because it has the funnel-structure, pin-muxing implies: dw_pwm - \ --- pwm-pinmux - \ rk_pwm - / -- pin other pinfunc - / So no skinning here ;-) > I believe the other option is to handle atop Heiko's patches: > > 9131959 New [1/3] dt-bindings: add used but undocumented > rockchip grf compatible values > 9131963 New [2/3] soc: rockchip: add driver handling grf setup > 9131957 New [3/3] ARM: rockchip: drop rk3288 jtag/mmc switch > handling > > I believe Heiko's patches implement the "grf subclass" talked about in > <https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4738311/>. considering that the two pwm, i2c etc implementations are mainly to have a fallback if the new block proves faulty (aka use rk_pwm by default and only fall back to the old one if it proves to have some unfixable error) I'd really consider this a init operation that should just be done one time. Heiko ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-09-21 22:01 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-07-08 2:45 [U-Boot] [PATCH] pwm: add MACRO to limit some code which only for rk3288 Kever Yang 2016-07-08 3:44 ` Ziyuan Xu 2016-07-09 14:39 ` Simon Glass 2016-07-11 6:58 ` Kever Yang 2016-07-11 23:54 ` Simon Glass 2016-07-12 2:45 ` Kever Yang 2016-07-12 13:12 ` Simon Glass 2016-07-29 2:55 ` Kever Yang 2016-07-29 4:46 ` Doug Anderson 2016-09-21 22:01 ` Heiko Stübner
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox