On 17.07.2018 15:21, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:45:51PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: >> Hi Felix, >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Felix Brack [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2018 3:13 PM >>> To: Alexander Graf <[email protected]>; Lokesh Vutla <[email protected]>; >>> [email protected] >>> Cc: Wolfgang Denk <[email protected]>; Tom Rini <[email protected]>; Marek >>> Vasut <[email protected]>; Patrice Chotard >>> <[email protected]>; Michal Simek <[email protected]>; Simon >>> Glass <[email protected]>; Alexey Brodkin >>> <[email protected]>; Bin Meng <[email protected]>; Ley Foon Tan >>> <[email protected]>; Patrick Delaunay >>> <[email protected]>; Mario Six <[email protected]>; Stefan Roese >>> <[email protected]>; Bernhard Messerklinger >>> <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] serial: ns16550: Add register shift variable >> >> [snip] >> >>> Adding a separate PORT in ns16550_serial_ids for a particular >>> architecture, platform or SoC would be an option. However the patch I >>> posted is much more generic as it offers to set the reg-shift property >>> for no matter what architecture, platform or SoC. It can also easily be >>> extended by adding more conditional defaults to the Kconfig file. >> >> I'd say we're dealing with just one corner-case here. >> If I understand a concept of Device Tree it is supposed to describe your >> hardware. Thus if reg shift exists in your HW it should be explicitly >> mentioned in >> your .dts. If for some [historical] reason you have to deal with "incorrect" >> .dts then >> I'd prefer to have mentioned quirk with a separate PORT in ns16550_serial_ids >> instead of adding yet another Kconfig option. > > So, this is part of the problem I suppose. I don't know _why_ we can't > just add the correct and valid reg-shift property to the dtsi file in > Linux and be done with it. Then the U-Boot driver would work because we > parse that property. > The only reason I can see why the <reg-shift> property "can't be added" to the Linux .dtsi file is that there is nothing broken in Linux. Hence we would actually ask Linux to add a property required by U-Boot.
This is exactly the reason for my RFC suggesting other solutions as the U-Boot build system is able to use a SoC and even a board specific .dtsi file. regards Felix _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
