On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 09:36:28AM +0100, Mateusz Krawczuk wrote:
> This patch add clk and device tree nodes for samsung onenand driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Krawczuk <m.krawczuk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/mtd/samsung-onenand.txt | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/mtd/onenand/samsung.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/samsung-onenand.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/samsung-onenand.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/samsung-onenand.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..cc46160
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mtd/samsung-onenand.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +Device tree bindings for Samsung Onenand
> +
> +Required properties:
> + - compatible: value should be either of the following.
> + (a) "samsung, s3c6400-onenand", for onenand compatible with s3c6400 onenand.
> + (b) "samsung, s3c6410-onenand", for onenand compatible with s3c6410 onenand.
> + (c) "samsung, s5pc100-onenand", for onenand compatible with s5pc100 onenand.
> + (d) "samsung, s5pc110-onenand", for s5pc100-like onenand used
> + on s5pc110 which supports DMA.
These compatible strings shouldn't have spaces.
What are the differences between these, beyond "s5pc110-onenand"
supporting DMA and the others not supporting DMA?
Can we describe these more generically, or do they differ all over the
place in register offsets and so on?
> +
> +Required properties:
> +
> + - reg: The CS line the peripheral
> + is connected to
That's not a fantastic description.
As a start, how about something like:
- reg: the offset and length of the control registers.
> + - interrupt-parent, interrupts Width of the ONENAND device
> + - connected to the Samsung SoC
> + in bytes. Must be 1 or 2.
Huh? This makes no sense.
Was this was hacked up from the gpmc-onenand binding?
> +
> +Optional properties:
> +
> + - dma-channel: DMA Channel index
Is this channel internal to the onenand device? If so, why does it need
to be described in this way?
Is this an unnecessary carry-over from the gpmc-onenand binding?
> +
> +For inline partiton table parsing (optional):
> +
> + - #address-cells: should be set to 1
> + - #size-cells: should be set to 1
> +
> +Example for an s5pv210 board:
> +
> + onenand@b0000000 {
> + compatible = "samsung,s5pc110-onenand";
> + reg = <0xb0000000 0x20000>, <0xb0600000 0x2000>;
You only described on reg region above.
Do you expect two, or any arbitrary number of regions?
What does each represent?
> + interrupt-parent = <&vic1>;
> + interrupts = <31>;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + clocks = <&clocks NANDXL>;
> + clock-names = "gate";
The clocks weren't described in the binding. They should be.
> + status = "okay";
> + };
> diff --git a/drivers/mtd/onenand/samsung.c b/drivers/mtd/onenand/samsung.c
> index df7400d..5a2cc4b 100644
> --- a/drivers/mtd/onenand/samsung.c
> +++ b/drivers/mtd/onenand/samsung.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> * S5PC110: use DMA
> */
>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> #include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/sched.h>
> @@ -24,6 +25,7 @@
> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h>
> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> +#include <linux/of.h>
>
> #include <asm/mach/flash.h>
>
> @@ -133,6 +135,7 @@ enum soc_type {
> struct s3c_onenand {
> struct mtd_info *mtd;
> struct platform_device *pdev;
> + struct clk *gate;
> enum soc_type type;
> void __iomem *base;
> struct resource *base_res;
> @@ -859,6 +862,19 @@ static void s3c_onenand_setup(struct mtd_info *mtd)
> this->write_bufferram = onenand_write_bufferram;
> }
>
> +static const struct of_device_id onenand_s3c_dt_match[] = {
> + { .compatible = "samsung,s3c6400-onenand",
> + .data = (void *)TYPE_S3C6400 },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,s3c6410-onenand",
> + .data = (void *)TYPE_S3C6410 },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,s5pc100-onenand",
> + .data = (void *)TYPE_S5PC100 },
> + { .compatible = "samsung,s5pc110-onenand",
> + .data = (void *)TYPE_S5PC110 },
> + {},
> +};
What are the differences between these?
Cheers,
Mark.
> +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, onenand_s3c_dt_match);
> +
> static int s3c_onenand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> {
> struct onenand_platform_data *pdata;
> @@ -883,12 +899,26 @@ static int s3c_onenand_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> goto onenand_fail;
> }
>
> + onenand->gate = clk_get(&pdev->dev, "gate");
> + if (IS_ERR(onenand->gate))
> + return PTR_ERR(onenand->gate);
> + clk_prepare_enable(onenand->gate);
> +
> this = (struct onenand_chip *) &mtd[1];
> mtd->priv = this;
> mtd->dev.parent = &pdev->dev;
> mtd->owner = THIS_MODULE;
> onenand->pdev = pdev;
> - onenand->type = platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data;
> +
> + if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
> + const struct of_device_id *match;
> +
> + match = of_match_node(onenand_s3c_dt_match, pdev->dev.of_node);
> + onenand->type = (enum soc_type)match->data;
> + } else {
> + onenand->type = platform_get_device_id(pdev)->driver_data;
> + }
> +
>
> s3c_onenand_setup(mtd);
>
> @@ -1077,6 +1107,10 @@ static int s3c_onenand_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> kfree(onenand->page_buf);
> kfree(onenand);
> kfree(mtd);
> +
> + clk_disable_unprepare(onenand->gate);
> + clk_put(onenand->gate);
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1125,6 +1159,7 @@ MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(platform, s3c_onenand_driver_ids);
> static struct platform_driver s3c_onenand_driver = {
> .driver = {
> .name = "samsung-onenand",
> + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(onenand_s3c_dt_match),
> .pm = &s3c_pm_ops,
> },
> .id_table = s3c_onenand_driver_ids,
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>
>
--
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
