Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-24 Thread Peng Fan 
Hi Troy,

> -Original Message-
> From: Troy Kisky [mailto:troy.ki...@boundarydevices.com]
> Sent: 2018年7月25日 2:27
> To: Fabio Estevam ; Peng Fan 
> Cc: Fabio Estevam ; U-Boot-Denx
> ; dl-linux-imx 
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to
> support i.MX8
> 
> On 7/23/2018 5:51 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> > Hi Peng,
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Peng Fan  wrote:
> >
> >> In V1, I use CONFIG_IMX8, but I think there is no need to use it, because
> >> CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 could do same thing.
> >
> > Yes, I prefer to drop "ARCH" for consistency.
> >
> >> I could revert to use CONFIG_IMX8, since you prefer it.
> >
> > Yes, that would be better.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't we already discuss this and decide to be consistent with CONFIG_MX6 /7
> and the rest ?

NXP marketing requires us to use IMX for i.MX family for i.MX8. So
I choose CONFIG_IMX[x]. You could see NXP vendor tree all switch to
use CONFIG_XX_IMX[x].

I understand CONFIG_MX6/7, but this change only impacts i.MX8,
The MX6/7 could also be converted to use IMX I think, just a large patch by
some scripts.

Also no talking this config, all the device tree names has 'i' before mx, for 
i.MX family, including i.MX6/7.

So I prefer to use _IMX[x]_

Stefano, What do you think?

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> 
> >
> >>> Also, for consistency: should CONFIG_MX8M be changed to
> CONFIG_IMX8M?
> >>
> >> Yes. CONFIG_MX8M also need to be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M, but not in
> this patchset.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > Thanks
> > ___
> > U-Boot mailing list
> > U-Boot@lists.denx.de
> >
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.de
> nx.de%2Flistinfo%2Fu-bootdata=02%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7C
> 4c27504551844e8386a108d5f1931308%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c3016
> 35%7C0%7C0%7C636680536334072741sdata=uEGuO5BIo2SI5v%2FSY6y
> aYnd2Q9I8ZMUzyhitJbgXQ34%3Dreserved=0
> >

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-24 Thread Fabio Estevam 
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 3:27 PM, Troy Kisky
 wrote:

> Didn't we already discuss this and decide to be consistent with CONFIG_MX6 /7 
> and the rest ?

Good point.

Peng, please use CONFIG_MX8 instead.

Thanks
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-24 Thread Troy Kisky 
On 7/23/2018 5:51 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
> Hi Peng,
> 
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Peng Fan  wrote:
> 
>> In V1, I use CONFIG_IMX8, but I think there is no need to use it, because
>> CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 could do same thing.
> 
> Yes, I prefer to drop "ARCH" for consistency.
> 
>> I could revert to use CONFIG_IMX8, since you prefer it.
> 
> Yes, that would be better.



Didn't we already discuss this and decide to be consistent with CONFIG_MX6 /7 
and the rest ?


> 
>>> Also, for consistency: should CONFIG_MX8M be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M?
>>
>> Yes. CONFIG_MX8M also need to be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M, but not in this 
>> patchset.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Thanks
> ___
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot@lists.denx.de
> https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
> 

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-23 Thread Fabio Estevam 
Hi Peng,

On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 9:45 PM, Peng Fan  wrote:

> In V1, I use CONFIG_IMX8, but I think there is no need to use it, because
> CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 could do same thing.

Yes, I prefer to drop "ARCH" for consistency.

> I could revert to use CONFIG_IMX8, since you prefer it.

Yes, that would be better.

>> Also, for consistency: should CONFIG_MX8M be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M?
>
> Yes. CONFIG_MX8M also need to be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M, but not in this 
> patchset.

Correct.

Thanks
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-23 Thread Peng Fan 
Hi Fabio,

> -Original Message-
> From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:feste...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 2018年7月24日 3:27
> To: Peng Fan 
> Cc: Stefano Babic ; Fabio Estevam
> ; U-Boot-Denx ; dl-linux-imx
> 
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to
> support i.MX8
> 
> Hi Peng,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Peng Fan  wrote:
> 
> > There is i.MX8/8X/8M, 8M is for i.MX8MQ and i.MX8MM i.MX8/8X has
> > different SoC architecture compared with i.MX8M, such as there is SCU
> > inside i.MX8/8X.
> > So add a new macro dedicated for i.MX8/8X.
> 
> Yes, I understand the differences between the MX8 family.
> 
> Couldn't you make CONFIG_IMX8 instead of CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 for
> consistency?

In V1, I use CONFIG_IMX8, but I think there is no need to use it, because
CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 could do same thing.

I could revert to use CONFIG_IMX8, since you prefer it.

> 
> Also, for consistency: should CONFIG_MX8M be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M?

Yes. CONFIG_MX8M also need to be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M, but not in this 
patchset.

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> Thanks
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-23 Thread Fabio Estevam 
Hi Peng,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Peng Fan  wrote:

> There is i.MX8/8X/8M, 8M is for i.MX8MQ and i.MX8MM
> i.MX8/8X has different SoC architecture compared with i.MX8M,
> such as there is SCU inside i.MX8/8X.
> So add a new macro dedicated for i.MX8/8X.

Yes, I understand the differences between the MX8 family.

Couldn't you make CONFIG_IMX8 instead of CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 for consistency?

Also, for consistency: should CONFIG_MX8M be changed to CONFIG_IMX8M?

Thanks
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-19 Thread Peng Fan 
Hi Fabio,

> -Original Message-
> From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:feste...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 2018年7月19日 22:01
> To: Peng Fan 
> Cc: Stefano Babic ; Fabio Estevam
> ; U-Boot-Denx ; dl-linux-imx
> 
> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to
> support i.MX8
> 
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Peng Fan  wrote:
> > From: Ye Li 
> >
> > Add CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 to use the 64bits support in usdhc driver.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ye Li 
> > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan 
> > Cc: Jaehoon Chung 
> > ---
> >  drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c | 8 
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c index
> > 4528345c67..785b9e87a6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
> > @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct fsl_esdhc_priv
> *priv, struct mmc *mmc,
> > int timeout;
> > struct fsl_esdhc *regs = priv->esdhc_regs;  #if
> > defined(CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE) || defined(CONFIG_S32V234) || \
> > -   defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
> > +   defined(CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8) || defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
> 
> I am a bit confused: why do we need the || here?
> 
> Doesn't CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 also relate to MX8M?

There is i.MX8/8X/8M, 8M is for i.MX8MQ and i.MX8MM
i.MX8/8X has different SoC architecture compared with i.MX8M,
such as there is SCU inside i.MX8/8X.
So add a new macro dedicated for i.MX8/8X.

Thanks,
Peng.
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-19 Thread Fabio Estevam 
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:35 PM, Peng Fan  wrote:
> From: Ye Li 
>
> Add CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 to use the 64bits support in usdhc driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ye Li 
> Signed-off-by: Peng Fan 
> Cc: Jaehoon Chung 
> ---
>  drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c | 8 
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
> index 4528345c67..785b9e87a6 100644
> --- a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
> +++ b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
> @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct fsl_esdhc_priv *priv, 
> struct mmc *mmc,
> int timeout;
> struct fsl_esdhc *regs = priv->esdhc_regs;
>  #if defined(CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE) || defined(CONFIG_S32V234) || \
> -   defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
> +   defined(CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8) || defined(CONFIG_MX8M)

I am a bit confused: why do we need the || here?

Doesn't CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 also relate to MX8M?
___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot

[U-Boot] [PATCH V2 29/32] fsl_esdhc: Update usdhc driver to support i.MX8

2018-07-17 Thread Peng Fan 
From: Ye Li 

Add CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8 to use the 64bits support in usdhc driver.

Signed-off-by: Ye Li 
Signed-off-by: Peng Fan 
Cc: Jaehoon Chung 
---
 drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c | 8 
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
index 4528345c67..785b9e87a6 100644
--- a/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
+++ b/drivers/mmc/fsl_esdhc.c
@@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct fsl_esdhc_priv *priv, 
struct mmc *mmc,
int timeout;
struct fsl_esdhc *regs = priv->esdhc_regs;
 #if defined(CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE) || defined(CONFIG_S32V234) || \
-   defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
+   defined(CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8) || defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
dma_addr_t addr;
 #endif
uint wml_value;
@@ -271,7 +271,7 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct fsl_esdhc_priv *priv, 
struct mmc *mmc,
esdhc_clrsetbits32(>wml, WML_RD_WML_MASK, wml_value);
 #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_FSL_ESDHC_USE_PIO
 #if defined(CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE) || defined(CONFIG_S32V234) || \
-   defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
+   defined(CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8) || defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
addr = virt_to_phys((void *)(data->dest));
if (upper_32_bits(addr))
printf("Error found for upper 32 bits\n");
@@ -301,7 +301,7 @@ static int esdhc_setup_data(struct fsl_esdhc_priv *priv, 
struct mmc *mmc,
wml_value << 16);
 #ifndef CONFIG_SYS_FSL_ESDHC_USE_PIO
 #if defined(CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE) || defined(CONFIG_S32V234) || \
-   defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
+   defined(CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8) || defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
addr = virt_to_phys((void *)(data->src));
if (upper_32_bits(addr))
printf("Error found for upper 32 bits\n");
@@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ static void check_and_invalidate_dcache_range
unsigned size = roundup(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN,
data->blocks*data->blocksize);
 #if defined(CONFIG_FSL_LAYERSCAPE) || defined(CONFIG_S32V234) || \
-   defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
+   defined(CONFIG_ARCH_IMX8) || defined(CONFIG_MX8M)
dma_addr_t addr;
 
addr = virt_to_phys((void *)(data->dest));
-- 
2.14.1

___
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot