On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Stephen Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > Olof Johansson wrote at Sunday, May 01, 2011 8:56 AM: >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:12:30PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: >> > tegra250.dts describes everything within the Tegra SoC, but leaves all >> > optional devices disabled. >> > >> > tegra-harmony.dts is now the configuration of the SoC for the board, >> > i.e. it enables the optional devices that are required for the board, >> > and provides any required platform data for those devics. >> > >> > The prevents every Tegra board having to repeat all the basic internal >> > SoC wiring. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <[email protected]> >> >> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <[email protected]> >> >> A mostly unrelated question below. >> >> [...] >> >> > + serial@70006000 { >> > + compatible = "nvidia,tegra250-uart"; >> >> I know this is how Grant specified it, but shouldn't these also have >> a compat for ns16550? > > At present, I'm not sure it is technically compatible. If you look at > drivers/tty/serial/of_serial.c, you'll see: > > static struct of_device_id __devinitdata of_platform_serial_table[] = { > ... > { .compatible = "ns16550", .data = (void *)PORT_16550, }, > ... > { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra250-uart", .data = (void *)PORT_XSCALE, > }, > > That PORT_XSCALE is different to the ns16550 entry. Arguably, that > field should be something that comes from the device tree, just > like e.g. reg-shift, but it certainly doesn't right now. > > Grant, what are your thoughts on this?
Heh, when I added that line I just mirrored the 'type' of 16550 as detected by the 8250.c driver when it probes and made a mental note that it should be revisited. I don't know the hardware very well, so I cannot easily say what the right thing to do is, but making it ns16550 compatible does seem to make sense. g. _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
