Dear Simon, On 23/05/14 02:27, Simon Glass wrote: > Hi Minkyu, > > On 21 May 2014 15:20, Minkyu Kang <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 22/05/14 03:58, Simon Glass wrote: >>> Hi Minkyu, >>> >>> On 21 May 2014 00:05, Minkyu Kang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 20/05/14 20:47, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>> Hi Minkyu, >>>>> >>>>> On 15 May 2014 00:51, Minkyu Kang <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> On 03/04/14 08:24, Simon Glass wrote: >>>>>>> From: Aaron Durbin <[email protected]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The TSP65090 is a PMIC on some exynos5 boards. The init function is >>>>>>> called for the TPS65090 pmic. If that device is not a part of the device >>>>>>> tree (returns -ENODEV) then continue. Otherwise return a failure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Durbin <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <[email protected]> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Changes in v2: >>>>>>> - Move code to exynos5-dt.c >>>>>>> - Fix comment style >>>>>>> - Add #ifdef around tps65090 code >>>>>>> >>>>>>> board/samsung/smdk5250/exynos5-dt.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> diff --git a/board/samsung/smdk5250/exynos5-dt.c >>>>>>> b/board/samsung/smdk5250/exynos5-dt.c >>>>>>> index 1a64b9b..2c1cf8a 100644 >>>>>>> --- a/board/samsung/smdk5250/exynos5-dt.c >>>>>>> +++ b/board/samsung/smdk5250/exynos5-dt.c >>>>>>> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ >>>>>>> #include <asm/arch/sromc.h> >>>>>>> #include <power/pmic.h> >>>>>>> #include <power/max77686_pmic.h> >>>>>>> +#include <power/tps65090_pmic.h> >>>>>>> #include <tmu.h> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR; >>>>>>> @@ -164,7 +165,19 @@ int exynos_power_init(void) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_POWER_MAX77686 >>>>>>> ret = max77686_init(); >>>>>>> + if (ret) >>>>>>> + return ret; >>>>>>> #endif >>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_POWER_TPS65090 >>>>>>> + /* >>>>>>> + * The TPS65090 may not be in the device tree. If so, it is not >>>>>>> + * an error. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then, how we can initialise the tps65090? >>>>> >>>>> It is initialised if a suitable node is found in the device tree. If >>>>> the device tree does not have it, then the hardware is assumed to not >>>>> have this chip. >>>> >>>> then I think, it's an error. >>>> Why you said, it is not an error? >>> >>> I may be misunderstanding your question, but I'll try to answer what I >>> think you are asking. >>> >>> The device tree contains nodes for hardware in the machine that you >>> want to initialise, and information about each one. Devices can be >>> enabled or disabled by including or removing this information from the >>> device tree (or marking a device disabled with a status = "disabled" >>> property in the node). >>> >>> The tps65090 chip is not used in all exynos5-dt boards, but is used in >>> some. For example smdk5250 does not have it, but snow does. So we use >>> the device tree to specify the difference, including (on snow) things >>> like the tps65090, the display bridge chip, etc. >>> >> >> Hm, it doesn't make sense. >> Then it(#define CONFIG_POWER_TPS65090) should go into each config files. >> Not in exynos5-dt.h. >> Please modify it and patch 6/12 also. > > The way it works at present is that there is a single exynos5-dt.h > file which is used by all exynos5 boards. To the extent possible we > have avoided putting particular features in things like snow.h and > smdk5250.h - they just include exynos5-dt.h without changes. > > The idea is that we can have one U-Boot binary that runs on any > exynos5 device, rather than lots of different options. This makes it > much easier to test changes sine we only need to build it once. If > every exynos5 board has different #defines then there are more > combinations to build and test. This is similar to what the kernel > does with arch/arm/mach-exynos/mach-exynos5-dt.c. > > Using this approach the only differences between smdk5250, daisy, > snow, spring, etc. are in the device tree. I'd really like to avoid > changing this now. It is easy enough for people to add their own > private variants of these locally if they want to, but for mainline I > believe it is better to be more generic.
I totally understood what you assert. But I can't agree with you. Do you think if we collect all features at exynos5-dt.h then it can be generic? even if some boards doesn't have the device? I think no. It just wrong definition. We should separate exynos5 generic features and board specific features. + ret = tps65090_init(); + if (ret == 0 || ret == -ENODEV) + return 0; At here.. whatever, the error is an error. If you got NODEV then should return it, because that board does not have device. Thanks, Minkyu Kang. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
