On Friday 23 August 2013 07:53 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> On Friday 23 August 2013 10:16 AM, Daniel Mack wrote:
>> In order to support features that are specific to the AM335x IP, we have
>> to add hardware types and another compatible string.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Mack <zonque@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt | 3 ++-
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++------
>> drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt
>> index 4e5ca54..b717458 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/net/cpsw.txt
>> @@ -2,7 +2,8 @@ TI SoC Ethernet Switch Controller Device Tree Bindings
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Required properties:
>> -- compatible : Should be "ti,cpsw"
>> +- compatible : Should be "ti,cpsw" for generic cpsw support, or
>> + "ti,am3352-cpsw" for AM3352 SoCs
>> - reg : physical base address and size of the cpsw
>> registers map.
>> An optional third memory region can be supplied if
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>> index 7a25ff4..73c44cb6 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/ti/cpsw.c
>> @@ -155,6 +155,11 @@ do { \
>> ((priv->data.dual_emac) ? priv->emac_port : \
>> priv->data.active_slave)
>>
>> +enum {
>> + CPSW_TYPE_GENERIC,
>> + CPSW_TYPE_AM33XX
>> +};
>> +
>> static int debug_level;
>> module_param(debug_level, int, 0);
>> MODULE_PARM_DESC(debug_level, "cpsw debug level (NETIF_MSG bits)");
>> @@ -1692,17 +1697,36 @@ static void cpsw_slave_init(struct cpsw_slave *slave, struct cpsw_priv *priv,
>> slave->port_vlan = data->dual_emac_res_vlan;
>> }
>>
>> +static const struct of_device_id cpsw_of_mtable[] = {
>> + {
>> + .compatible = "ti,am3352-cpsw",
> I didn't notice this earlier, but can't you use the IP version
> as a compatible instead of using a SOC name. Whats really SOC specific
> on this IP ? Sorry i have missed any earlier discussion on this but
> this approach doesn't seem good. Its like adding SOC checks in the
> driver subsystem.
>
>
But the same IP can be used in different SoC as well where the control
register may be different as per the Silicon Integration team's decision?
Ideally there should be a separate control module driver so that it can
take care of different SoC related needs.
Regards
Mugunthan V N
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
