Hello Thomas,
Sorry for the noise, this mail was filtered by LKML and LAKML beacause
thunderbird
added HTML contents.
On 07/08/2013 18:08, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
Dear Boris BREZILLON,
On Wed, 7 Aug 2013 12:14:26 +0200, Boris BREZILLON wrote:
This patch splits the sam9x5 peripheral definitions into:
- a common base for all sam9x5 SoCs (at91sam9x5.dtsi)
- several optional peripheral definitions which will be included by specific
sam9x5 SoCs (at91sam9x5_'periph name'.dtsi)
This provides a better representation of the real hardware (drop unneeded
dt nodes) and avoids future peripheral id conflict (lcdc and isi both use
peripheral id 25).
Signed-off-by: Boris BREZILLON<b.brezil...@overkiz.com>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g25.dtsi | 2 +
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g35.dtsi | 1 +
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x25.dtsi | 24 ++---------
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x35.dtsi | 1 +
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5.dtsi | 67 ------------------------------
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_macb0.dtsi | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_macb1.dtsi | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_usart3.dtsi | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++
8 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 88 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_macb0.dtsi
create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_macb1.dtsi
create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9x5_usart3.dtsi
Hum, do we really want to have .dtsi files per peripheral? I might have
overlooked this, but I think it's the first time we would have this in
arch/arm/boot/dts.
It's not one .dtsi file for each available peripheral but for each
**optional**
peripheral (those which are not available for all sam9x5 SoCs).
For example:
macb0 is available in this SoCs:
- 9g25
- 9g35
- 9x25
- 9x35
and not available in 9g15 SoC.
And we have different combinatory for each of the optional devices.
IMHO, defining the unneeded dt nodes in the common sam9x5.dtsi is a bad
idea, because
the dtb footprint will be bigger for SoC which does not have the
optional peripherals
and the dt hardware representation will be false.
I see two options to solve this issue:
1) define a .dtsi file describing the optional peripherals and include
these .dtsi in the SoC.dtsi file
(as I proposed, but maybe the names are not appropriate)
2) copy the peripheral definitions in each SoC .dtsi file
I prefer option 1) as it's safer than copying the definition (update of
dtsi is easier and there is no
risk to introduce a new bug when copying definitions).
Please, tell me if you see other options, or if you think this "issue"
should not be solved.
Best Regards,
Boris
Thomas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
