On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Michal Simek <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2.3.2016 13:18, Adam Ford wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Michal Simek <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 2.3.2016 12:09, Adam Ford wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Mugunthan V N <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 03:03 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 02:55 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote: >>>>>>>> With commit: d9a3bec682f9 "dm: ns16550: Add support for reg-offset >>>>>>>> property" >>>>>>>> reg_offset is added to the struct ns16550_platdata to be >>>>>>>> dt compatible with Linux kernel driver, TI AM335x evms are broken >>>>>>>> as the serial platdata updates wrong offsets. Correcting it with >>>>>>>> initializing reg_offset to zero. >>>>>> Acked-by: Lokesh Vutla <[email protected]> >>>>>> >>>>>> This will be true for OMAP5+ platforms as well. I guess that array also >>>>>> needs to be updated? >>>>> >>>>> Apart from AM335x, no other platform is converted to DM for non-dt boot, >>>>> so there is no issues with other TI platforms. >>>> >>>> Due to the way the structure was changed, a bunch of omap3 boards >>>> broke because they hard-coded the values expecting them in a certain >>>> order in the structure. The patch has since been reverted. >>> >>> the patch was reverting just because we are close to release not because >>> the patch is wrong. It will be added again in the merge window. >>> That's why I am asking you to define your structure right with proper >>> assignment or you will deal with this problem pretty soon again. >>> The best all these patches should come to the tree before my patch. >> >> I wasn't trying to imply there was anything wrong with the patch. On >> contrary, I was criticizing the hard-coded nature of how the omap3 >> boards (and some others) defined it by expecting the data in a certain >> order. I have submitted a patch to address (what I think are) all but >> the am335x boards. Since there was already a patch submitted for >> AM35x, so I didn't want to modify the AM335x again. >> >> I only mentioned the patch was being reverted because someone was >> concerned about the OMAP5+ and I was trying to indicate that there is >> some time to look into it. Sorry if I didn't come across correctly. > > no worries. I just wanted to make it clear because reverting patch is > causing problem for microblaze with uart16550 but now it is better then > break others. >
Hopefully those patches will get approved so we can get your patch incorporated. Mugunthan - If you want, I can add your am355x board to my patch or if you want you can review it and take what you need. > Thanks, > Michal > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
