[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[Kever Yang]

Hi Simon,

     I met two issue when using of-platdata

1. compitable name with '.'
I get compile error as below:
In file included from include/dt-structs.h:16:0,
                  from spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:3:
include/generated/dt-structs.h:26:35: error: expected identifier or ?(? 
before numeric constant
  struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 {
                                    ^
spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:41:42: error: expected identifier or ?(? before 
numeric constant
  static struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000 = {
                                           ^
spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:55:15: error: ?dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000? undeclared 
here (not in a function)
   .platdata = &dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000,
                ^
make[2]: *** [spl/dts/dt-platdata.o] Error 1
make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2
make: *** [__build_one_by_one] Error 2

The dts node starts like this:
         sdhci: sdhci at fe330000 {
                 u-boot,dm-pre-reloc;
                 compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1", 
"arasan,sdhci-5.1";
...

2. multi compatible name
When a dts node have more than one compatible name, which is prefer to use?
for example, we have two dwmmc compatible name in rk3399, the tool is 
using the first one,
while the source code using the last one.

"drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c"
  23 struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
  24 #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
  25         struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
  26 #endif
  27         struct mmc_config cfg;
  28         struct mmc mmc;
  29 };
...
dts node
         sdmmc: dwmmc at fe320000 {
                compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc",
                              "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";
...

Thanks,
- Kever

[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Kever,

On 15 January 2017 at 18:28, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
>     I met two issue when using of-platdata
>
> 1. compitable name with '.'
> I get compile error as below:
> In file included from include/dt-structs.h:16:0,
>                  from spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:3:
> include/generated/dt-structs.h:26:35: error: expected identifier or ?(?
> before numeric constant
>  struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 {
>                                    ^
> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:41:42: error: expected identifier or ?(? before
> numeric constant
>  static struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000 = {
>                                           ^
> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:55:15: error: ?dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000? undeclared here
> (not in a function)
>   .platdata = &dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000,
>                ^
> make[2]: *** [spl/dts/dt-platdata.o] Error 1
> make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2
> make: *** [__build_one_by_one] Error 2
>
> The dts node starts like this:
>         sdhci: sdhci at fe330000 {
>                 u-boot,dm-pre-reloc;
>                 compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1",
> "arasan,sdhci-5.1";
> ...

That just involves replacing '.' with '_'. I sent a patch.

>
> 2. multi compatible name
> When a dts node have more than one compatible name, which is prefer to use?
> for example, we have two dwmmc compatible name in rk3399, the tool is using
> the first one,
> while the source code using the last one.
>
> "drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c"
>  23 struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>  24 #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>  25         struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>  26 #endif
>  27         struct mmc_config cfg;
>  28         struct mmc mmc;
>  29 };
> ...
> dts node
>         sdmmc: dwmmc at fe320000 {
>                compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc",
>                              "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";

I'm not sure of the best solution here (other than putting more
on-chip SRAM in your devices hint hint :-)

One option is something like:

struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
#if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
#ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288
        struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
#elif defined(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK399)
        struct dtd_rockchip_rk399_dw_mshc dtplat;
#endif
#endif

Obviously we don't want that as it is putting SoC-specific stuff in the driver.

IMO the compatible strings are being misused a bit. Can there not be a
compatible string which is common to all rockchip devices which use
this IP? Something like "rockchip,dw-mshc-v1"? Then you can avoid
adding a new compatible string every time you use the same IP in a
device.

Another option would be for dtoc to #define each compatible string to
the first one. If you think that would work, I could do a patch.

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[Kever Yang]

Hi Simon,

On 01/16/2017 12:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
> Hi Kever,
>
> On 15 January 2017 at 18:28, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>>      I met two issue when using of-platdata
>>
>> 1. compitable name with '.'
>> I get compile error as below:
>> In file included from include/dt-structs.h:16:0,
>>                   from spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:3:
>> include/generated/dt-structs.h:26:35: error: expected identifier or ?(?
>> before numeric constant
>>   struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 {
>>                                     ^
>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:41:42: error: expected identifier or ?(? before
>> numeric constant
>>   static struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000 = {
>>                                            ^
>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:55:15: error: ?dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000? undeclared here
>> (not in a function)
>>    .platdata = &dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000,
>>                 ^
>> make[2]: *** [spl/dts/dt-platdata.o] Error 1
>> make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2
>> make: *** [__build_one_by_one] Error 2
>>
>> The dts node starts like this:
>>          sdhci: sdhci at fe330000 {
>>                  u-boot,dm-pre-reloc;
>>                  compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1",
>> "arasan,sdhci-5.1";
>> ...
> That just involves replacing '.' with '_'. I sent a patch.
>
>> 2. multi compatible name
>> When a dts node have more than one compatible name, which is prefer to use?
>> for example, we have two dwmmc compatible name in rk3399, the tool is using
>> the first one,
>> while the source code using the last one.
>>
>> "drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c"
>>   23 struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>   24 #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>   25         struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>   26 #endif
>>   27         struct mmc_config cfg;
>>   28         struct mmc mmc;
>>   29 };
>> ...
>> dts node
>>          sdmmc: dwmmc at fe320000 {
>>                 compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc",
>>                               "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";
> I'm not sure of the best solution here (other than putting more
> on-chip SRAM in your devices hint hint :-)
>
> One option is something like:
>
> struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
> #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
> #ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288
>          struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
> #elif defined(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK399)
>          struct dtd_rockchip_rk399_dw_mshc dtplat;
> #endif
> #endif
>
> Obviously we don't want that as it is putting SoC-specific stuff in the driver.
>
> IMO the compatible strings are being misused a bit. Can there not be a
> compatible string which is common to all rockchip devices which use
> this IP? Something like "rockchip,dw-mshc-v1"? Then you can avoid
> adding a new compatible string every time you use the same IP in a
> device.

Agree, but... this is from kernel, we can't control it unless all kernel 
maintainers
have the same idea.
>
> Another option would be for dtoc to #define each compatible string to
> the first one. If you think that would work, I could do a patch.

     I think we can try with the first one in the driver for of-platdata,
this would have problem for the first compatible name is different but
they share the same driver, like syscon. For syscon, you have resolved with
a special dirver, not sure if other driver has the same problem.

     Could you help to make a patch for this solution?

Thanks,
- Kever
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
>

[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[Jaehoon Chung]

On 02/13/2017 06:23 PM, Kever Yang wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On 01/16/2017 12:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>> Hi Kever,
>>
>> On 15 January 2017 at 18:28, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>>      I met two issue when using of-platdata
>>>
>>> 1. compitable name with '.'
>>> I get compile error as below:
>>> In file included from include/dt-structs.h:16:0,
>>>                   from spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:3:
>>> include/generated/dt-structs.h:26:35: error: expected identifier or ?(?
>>> before numeric constant
>>>   struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 {
>>>                                     ^
>>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:41:42: error: expected identifier or ?(? before
>>> numeric constant
>>>   static struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000 = {
>>>                                            ^
>>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:55:15: error: ?dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000? undeclared here
>>> (not in a function)
>>>    .platdata = &dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000,
>>>                 ^
>>> make[2]: *** [spl/dts/dt-platdata.o] Error 1
>>> make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2
>>> make: *** [__build_one_by_one] Error 2
>>>
>>> The dts node starts like this:
>>>          sdhci: sdhci at fe330000 {
>>>                  u-boot,dm-pre-reloc;
>>>                  compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1",
>>> "arasan,sdhci-5.1";
>>> ...
>> That just involves replacing '.' with '_'. I sent a patch.
>>
>>> 2. multi compatible name
>>> When a dts node have more than one compatible name, which is prefer to use?
>>> for example, we have two dwmmc compatible name in rk3399, the tool is using
>>> the first one,
>>> while the source code using the last one.
>>>
>>> "drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c"
>>>   23 struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>>   24 #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>>   25         struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>   26 #endif
>>>   27         struct mmc_config cfg;
>>>   28         struct mmc mmc;
>>>   29 };
>>> ...
>>> dts node
>>>          sdmmc: dwmmc at fe320000 {
>>>                 compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc",
>>>                               "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";
>> I'm not sure of the best solution here (other than putting more
>> on-chip SRAM in your devices hint hint :-)
>>
>> One option is something like:
>>
>> struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>> #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>> #ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288
>>          struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>> #elif defined(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK399)
>>          struct dtd_rockchip_rk399_dw_mshc dtplat;
>> #endif
>> #endif
>>
>> Obviously we don't want that as it is putting SoC-specific stuff in the driver.
>>
>> IMO the compatible strings are being misused a bit. Can there not be a
>> compatible string which is common to all rockchip devices which use
>> this IP? Something like "rockchip,dw-mshc-v1"? Then you can avoid
>> adding a new compatible string every time you use the same IP in a
>> device.
> 
> Agree, but... this is from kernel, we can't control it unless all kernel maintainers
> have the same idea.

does it use just "rockchip,dw-mshc"? Maybe this can be common compatible for rockchip.
If it needs add the other compatible in future, it should be added the specific compatible at that time.

>>
>> Another option would be for dtoc to #define each compatible string to
>> the first one. If you think that would work, I could do a patch.
> 
>     I think we can try with the first one in the driver for of-platdata,
> this would have problem for the first compatible name is different but
> they share the same driver, like syscon. For syscon, you have resolved with
> a special dirver, not sure if other driver has the same problem.
> 
>     Could you help to make a patch for this solution?
> 
> Thanks,
> - Kever
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[Kever Yang]

Hi Simon, Jaehoon,

On 02/13/2017 05:51 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
> On 02/13/2017 06:23 PM, Kever Yang wrote:
>> Hi Simon,
>>
>> On 01/16/2017 12:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>> Hi Kever,
>>>
>>> On 15 January 2017 at 18:28, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>
>>>>       I met two issue when using of-platdata
>>>>
>>>> 1. compitable name with '.'
>>>> I get compile error as below:
>>>> In file included from include/dt-structs.h:16:0,
>>>>                    from spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:3:
>>>> include/generated/dt-structs.h:26:35: error: expected identifier or ?(?
>>>> before numeric constant
>>>>    struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 {
>>>>                                      ^
>>>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:41:42: error: expected identifier or ?(? before
>>>> numeric constant
>>>>    static struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000 = {
>>>>                                             ^
>>>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:55:15: error: ?dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000? undeclared here
>>>> (not in a function)
>>>>     .platdata = &dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000,
>>>>                  ^
>>>> make[2]: *** [spl/dts/dt-platdata.o] Error 1
>>>> make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2
>>>> make: *** [__build_one_by_one] Error 2
>>>>
>>>> The dts node starts like this:
>>>>           sdhci: sdhci at fe330000 {
>>>>                   u-boot,dm-pre-reloc;
>>>>                   compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1",
>>>> "arasan,sdhci-5.1";
>>>> ...
>>> That just involves replacing '.' with '_'. I sent a patch.
>>>
>>>> 2. multi compatible name
>>>> When a dts node have more than one compatible name, which is prefer to use?
>>>> for example, we have two dwmmc compatible name in rk3399, the tool is using
>>>> the first one,
>>>> while the source code using the last one.
>>>>
>>>> "drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c"
>>>>    23 struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>>>    24 #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>>>    25         struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>>    26 #endif
>>>>    27         struct mmc_config cfg;
>>>>    28         struct mmc mmc;
>>>>    29 };
>>>> ...
>>>> dts node
>>>>           sdmmc: dwmmc at fe320000 {
>>>>                  compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc",
>>>>                                "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";
>>> I'm not sure of the best solution here (other than putting more
>>> on-chip SRAM in your devices hint hint :-)
>>>
>>> One option is something like:
>>>
>>> struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>> #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288
>>>           struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>> #elif defined(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK399)
>>>           struct dtd_rockchip_rk399_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>> #endif
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> Obviously we don't want that as it is putting SoC-specific stuff in the driver.
>>>
>>> IMO the compatible strings are being misused a bit. Can there not be a
>>> compatible string which is common to all rockchip devices which use
>>> this IP? Something like "rockchip,dw-mshc-v1"? Then you can avoid
>>> adding a new compatible string every time you use the same IP in a
>>> device.
>> Agree, but... this is from kernel, we can't control it unless all kernel maintainers
>> have the same idea.
> does it use just "rockchip,dw-mshc"? Maybe this can be common compatible for rockchip.
> If it needs add the other compatible in future, it should be added the specific compatible at that time.
>

I don't think we will have a change in dts compatible for U-Boot dts, 
because we will always using dts
file from kernel, so we will use it as is.

We can use "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" for rk3288 and rk3399, here is the 
document.
and for dw-mshc:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/rockchip-dw-mshc.txt
* compatible: should be
         - "rockchip,rk2928-dw-mshc": for Rockchip RK2928 and following,
                                                         before RK3288
         - "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc": for Rockchip RK3288
         - "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc", "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc": for 
Rockchip RK3399

For the compatible name, there had some discuss before, like this patch:
https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/2372182

So for the of-platdata, we can use "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" to generate 
the structure.

Thanks,
- Kever
>>> Another option would be for dtoc to #define each compatible string to
>>> the first one. If you think that would work, I could do a patch.
>>      I think we can try with the first one in the driver for of-platdata,
>> this would have problem for the first compatible name is different but
>> they share the same driver, like syscon. For syscon, you have resolved with
>> a special dirver, not sure if other driver has the same problem.
>>
>>      Could you help to make a patch for this solution?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Kever
>>> Regards,
>>> Simon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> U-Boot mailing list
>> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
>> http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
>
>
>

[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[Simon Glass]

Hi Kever,

On 13 February 2017 at 18:09, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon, Jaehoon,
>
>
> On 02/13/2017 05:51 PM, Jaehoon Chung wrote:
>>
>> On 02/13/2017 06:23 PM, Kever Yang wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Simon,
>>>
>>> On 01/16/2017 12:15 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Kever,
>>>>
>>>> On 15 January 2017 at 18:28, Kever Yang <kever.yang@rock-chips.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Simon,
>>>>>
>>>>>       I met two issue when using of-platdata
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. compitable name with '.'
>>>>> I get compile error as below:
>>>>> In file included from include/dt-structs.h:16:0,
>>>>>                    from spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:3:
>>>>> include/generated/dt-structs.h:26:35: error: expected identifier or ?(?
>>>>> before numeric constant
>>>>>    struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 {
>>>>>                                      ^
>>>>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:41:42: error: expected identifier or ?(? before
>>>>> numeric constant
>>>>>    static struct dtd_rockchip_rk3399_sdhci_5.1 dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000 =
>>>>> {
>>>>>                                             ^
>>>>> spl/dts/dt-platdata.c:55:15: error: ?dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000? undeclared
>>>>> here
>>>>> (not in a function)
>>>>>     .platdata = &dtv_sdhci_at_fe330000,
>>>>>                  ^
>>>>> make[2]: *** [spl/dts/dt-platdata.o] Error 1
>>>>> make[1]: *** [spl/u-boot-spl] Error 2
>>>>> make: *** [__build_one_by_one] Error 2
>>>>>
>>>>> The dts node starts like this:
>>>>>           sdhci: sdhci at fe330000 {
>>>>>                   u-boot,dm-pre-reloc;
>>>>>                   compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1",
>>>>> "arasan,sdhci-5.1";
>>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> That just involves replacing '.' with '_'. I sent a patch.
>>>>
>>>>> 2. multi compatible name
>>>>> When a dts node have more than one compatible name, which is prefer to
>>>>> use?
>>>>> for example, we have two dwmmc compatible name in rk3399, the tool is
>>>>> using
>>>>> the first one,
>>>>> while the source code using the last one.
>>>>>
>>>>> "drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c"
>>>>>    23 struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>>>>    24 #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>>>>    25         struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>>>    26 #endif
>>>>>    27         struct mmc_config cfg;
>>>>>    28         struct mmc mmc;
>>>>>    29 };
>>>>> ...
>>>>> dts node
>>>>>           sdmmc: dwmmc at fe320000 {
>>>>>                  compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc",
>>>>>                                "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure of the best solution here (other than putting more
>>>> on-chip SRAM in your devices hint hint :-)
>>>>
>>>> One option is something like:
>>>>
>>>> struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>>> #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288
>>>>           struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>> #elif defined(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK399)
>>>>           struct dtd_rockchip_rk399_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>> #endif
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> Obviously we don't want that as it is putting SoC-specific stuff in the
>>>> driver.
>>>>
>>>> IMO the compatible strings are being misused a bit. Can there not be a
>>>> compatible string which is common to all rockchip devices which use
>>>> this IP? Something like "rockchip,dw-mshc-v1"? Then you can avoid
>>>> adding a new compatible string every time you use the same IP in a
>>>> device.
>>>
>>> Agree, but... this is from kernel, we can't control it unless all kernel
>>> maintainers
>>> have the same idea.
>>
>> does it use just "rockchip,dw-mshc"? Maybe this can be common compatible
>> for rockchip.
>> If it needs add the other compatible in future, it should be added the
>> specific compatible at that time.
>>
>
> I don't think we will have a change in dts compatible for U-Boot dts,
> because we will always using dts
> file from kernel, so we will use it as is.
>
> We can use "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" for rk3288 and rk3399, here is the
> document.
> and for dw-mshc:
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/rockchip-dw-mshc.txt
> * compatible: should be
>         - "rockchip,rk2928-dw-mshc": for Rockchip RK2928 and following,
>                                                         before RK3288
>         - "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc": for Rockchip RK3288
>         - "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc", "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc": for Rockchip
> RK3399
>
> For the compatible name, there had some discuss before, like this patch:
> https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/2372182
>
> So for the of-platdata, we can use "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" to generate the
> structure.

So in this case, as you saying that you need dtoc to #define the
structs to be the same? Or can you do this yourself in a header file?

 [..]

Regards,
Simon

[U-Boot] U-Boot of-platdata issue

[Kever Yang]

Hi Simon,


On 02/17/2017 04:43 AM, Simon Glass wrote:

[...]
>>>>>> 2. multi compatible name
>>>>>> When a dts node have more than one compatible name, which is prefer to
>>>>>> use?
>>>>>> for example, we have two dwmmc compatible name in rk3399, the tool is
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> the first one,
>>>>>> while the source code using the last one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "drivers/mmc/rockchip_dw_mmc.c"
>>>>>>     23 struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>>>>>     24 #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>>>>>     25         struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>>>>     26 #endif
>>>>>>     27         struct mmc_config cfg;
>>>>>>     28         struct mmc mmc;
>>>>>>     29 };
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> dts node
>>>>>>            sdmmc: dwmmc at fe320000 {
>>>>>>                   compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc",
>>>>>>                                 "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";
>>>>> I'm not sure of the best solution here (other than putting more
>>>>> on-chip SRAM in your devices hint hint :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> One option is something like:
>>>>>
>>>>> struct rockchip_mmc_plat {
>>>>> #if CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_PLATDATA)
>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK3288
>>>>>            struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>>> #elif defined(CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_RK399)
>>>>>            struct dtd_rockchip_rk399_dw_mshc dtplat;
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> #endif
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously we don't want that as it is putting SoC-specific stuff in the
>>>>> driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO the compatible strings are being misused a bit. Can there not be a
>>>>> compatible string which is common to all rockchip devices which use
>>>>> this IP? Something like "rockchip,dw-mshc-v1"? Then you can avoid
>>>>> adding a new compatible string every time you use the same IP in a
>>>>> device.
>>>> Agree, but... this is from kernel, we can't control it unless all kernel
>>>> maintainers
>>>> have the same idea.
>>> does it use just "rockchip,dw-mshc"? Maybe this can be common compatible
>>> for rockchip.
>>> If it needs add the other compatible in future, it should be added the
>>> specific compatible at that time.
>>>
>> I don't think we will have a change in dts compatible for U-Boot dts,
>> because we will always using dts
>> file from kernel, so we will use it as is.
>>
>> We can use "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" for rk3288 and rk3399, here is the
>> document.
>> and for dw-mshc:
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/rockchip-dw-mshc.txt
>> * compatible: should be
>>          - "rockchip,rk2928-dw-mshc": for Rockchip RK2928 and following,
>>                                                          before RK3288
>>          - "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc": for Rockchip RK3288
>>          - "rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc", "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc": for Rockchip
>> RK3399
>>
>> For the compatible name, there had some discuss before, like this patch:
>> https://lists.gt.net/linux/kernel/2372182
>>
>> So for the of-platdata, we can use "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" to generate the
>> structure.
> So in this case, as you saying that you need dtoc to #define the
> structs to be the same? Or can you do this yourself in a header file?

Maybe what I want to say is not clear enough.
Instead of using new compatible for dts match, we should using the very 
first
compatible for of-platdata structure.
Like the document mentioned before:
"rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc"     for RK3288,
"rockchip,rk3399-dw-mshc", "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";     for RK3399
"rockchip,rk3328-dw-mshc", "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc";     for RK3328

The "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" is always there if we are using the same 
controller,
we can use this "rockchip,rk3288-dw-mshc" to generate the of-platdata 
structure,
then we can always use "struct dtd_rockchip_rk3288_dw_mshc dtplat;" in 
mmc driver.

Could you help to send a patch for this? I'm really not good at python :(

Thanks,
- Kever

>
>   [..]
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
>
>