Hi Sricharan, On 15/05/13 12:04, Sricharan R wrote: > Hi, > > On Wednesday 15 May 2013 01:25 PM, Lubomir Popov wrote: >> Hi Sricharan, >> >> On 15/05/13 08:11, Sricharan R wrote: >>> Hi, >>> On Tuesday 14 May 2013 10:11 PM, Tom Rini wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:09:33PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote: >>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>> >>>>> On 14/05/13 17:52, Tom Rini wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 01:24:41PM +0300, Lubomir Popov wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Tom, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm currently busy with other work; on the other hand, careful >>>>>>> rebasing shall require some time, especially the Palmas stuff. >>>>>>> What would be the deadline for a V2 submission? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Meanwhile could you please have a look at the (already old) >>>>>>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/232743/? A simple patch, >>>>>>> shall be needed if we enable USB (for the uEVM along with >>>>>>> our board). In general, what are your plans regarding USB >>>>>>> (.../patch/232742/)? >>>>>> Thanks for the reminder, I'll grab 232743 soon. 232742 looks OK, but do >>>>>> you have a patch around for uEVM still? >>>>> Not yet (didn't have the opportunity to test, although some uEVMs should >>>>> be around at MMS). As you know, a patch shall be needed in the uEVM board >>>>> file along with the common USB stuff. >>>> Yeah, I can test it as well if you write it up, and may find the time if >>>> you point me in the right direction. >>>> >>>>>>> And again on I2C (.../patch/233823/): what is you final >>>>>>> opinion? I'm confident that this patch is a major improvement >>>>>>> for OMAP4/5 at least. >>>>>> I'm inclined to go with it, just need to mentally unswap the i2c notes >>>>>> in my brain and think it over one more time. >>>>> Just applied 233823 to current u-boot-ti master. Works fine. >>>> OK, thanks. >>>> >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>>>> + * TODO: Replace this ugly hardcoding with proper defines + >>>>>>>>>>> */ + writel(0x0100, 0x4ae0a310); >>>>>>>>>> Again, do please. >>>>>>>>> This should be (*scrm)->auxclk0. The problem is that the >>>>>>>>> omap5_scrm_regs struct (holding the auxclk0 member) has to be >>>>>>>>> defined somewhere in the common OMAP5 headers. Sricharan? Or should >>>>>>>>> I hack around? >>>>>>>> Add it to the most likely struct in the headers. >>>>>>> The entire struct (I call it omap5_scrm_regs in theory, similar to the >>>>>>> corresponding omap4_scrm_regs for OMAP4) is not defined anywhere. Of >>>>>>> course I could define only the member that I need, but I guess it is >>>>>>> a (responsible) TI job to define hardware descriptors. Or I'm wrong? >>>>>>> Please advise. If I have time, I could do it myself - it's some 27 >>>>>>> registers, almost identical to the OMAP4, and should go into >>>>>>> arch/arm/include/asm/arch-omap5/clocks.h. >>>>>> Whomever uses / needs it should do it. I gave the TRM a quick read and >>>>>> I don't see any conflicts per-se just some reserved areas being named >>>>>> and vice versa. So rename it to omap_scrm_regs and move to >>>>>> <asm/omap_common.h>. Thanks! >>>>> I would argue that this is not very appropriate. Those regs that are >>>>> reserved on the OMAP5 are related to altclkscr and auxclk5 on the OMAP4; >>>>> on the other hand the OMAP5 has some modem clock regs that are reserved >>>>> on OMAP4. We shall probably have ugly #ifdefs again. And what about OMAP3 >>>>> and below? >>>> We don't need to use ifdefs since there's no conflicts, things are >>>> either reserved in one case and used in the other. And we can make sure >>>> we don't try and use the omap5 bits on omap4 and vice versa. I don't >>>> see scrm in the first omap3 TRM I pulled up, so we don't need to worry >>>> there. >>>> >>>>> Currently the scrm struct is defined for OMAP4 in the >>>>> asm/arch-omap4/clocks.h >>>>> file and I have already done the same for OMAP5 by analogy. I must admit >>>>> however that this approach does not correspond to the latest way by which >>>>> groups of OMAP hardware regs are defined, prcm in particular - a struct in >>>>> omap_common.h, holding only the required regs, no padding and such >>>>> garbage, >>>>> and an init with the physical addresses in a .c file for the particular >>>>> SoC >>>>> (prcm-regs.c). But still the Panda board, for example, uses the old way >>>>> for >>>>> scrm. Therefore I did it the same for OMAP5, which was easier (I'm old and >>>>> lazy ;) ). >>>> Yes, I'm OK starting off with moving things into omap_common.h as-is and >>>> then updating them a bit later ala pcrm-regs.c. >>>> >>>> >>> I am sorry for the very late response on this. >>> Now then, why not add this register in to omap5_es2_prcm >>> ??. That is how the TRM sees it as well.. Of course, this is cleanup >>> stuff for OMAP4 panda as you pointed out.. >> Yes, you are right in respect to fluent software integration and consistency >> with current implementation. My only concern is that from architectural point >> of view the SCRM, although related to the PRCM, is a separate module >> (described >> correspondingly as such in the TRM). If we go this way, the SCRM regs shall >> have to be referenced via the prcm pointer: (*prcm)->xxxxx, and this might be >> confusing. >> >> I'm OK to do it as above, that is, add the SCRM regs (for both OMAP4 and >> OMAP5) >> to the prcm_regs declaration in omap_common.h, and the required init to the >> appropriate omap5_esx_prcm in prcm-regs.c, but would suggest that for >> improved >> clarity the SCRM register names, as they now exist in >> .../arch-omap4/clocks.h, >> start with a scrm_ prefix. >> >> Alternatively, a new scrm_regs struct could be declared in omap_common.h, >> along >> with the appropriate pointers, and the corresponding definitions/inits added >> as >> new structs in prcm-regs.c for every SoC. But then the file name prcm-regs >> shall >> be a bit confusing. >> >> What do you say? > At this point , i think just adding only the registers that you need in to > the > prcm structure should be ok. OK, I just tend to add all registers, it shall be easier for later rework. > > Regards, > Sricharan >
BR, Lubo _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot