> -----Original Message----- > From: Ray Jui [mailto:rjui@xxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 28 October 2015 06:17 > To: Brian Norris > Cc: Anup Patel; David Woodhouse; Linux MTD; Rob Herring; Pawel Moll; Mark > Rutland; Catalin Marinas; Will Deacon; Sudeep Holla; Ian Campbell; Kumar Gala; > Scott Branden; Florian Fainelli; Pramod Kumar; Vikram Prakash; Sandeep > Tripathy; Linux ARM Kernel; Device Tree; Linux Kernel; bcm-kernel-feedback-list > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] arm64: dts: Add BRCM IPROC NAND DT node for > NS2 > > > > On 10/27/2015 5:39 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 05:25:32PM -0700, Ray Jui wrote: > >> On 10/27/2015 5:19 PM, Brian Norris wrote: > >>> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 10:46:13AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi > >>>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi > >>>> index f603277..9610822 100644 > >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/broadcom/ns2.dtsi > >>>> @@ -212,5 +212,19 @@ > >>>> compatible = "brcm,iproc-rng200"; > >>>> reg = <0x66220000 0x28>; > >>>> }; > >>>> + > >>>> + nand: nand@66460000 { > >>>> + compatible = "brcm,nand-iproc", "brcm,brcmnand- > v6.1"; > >>> > >>> Technically, the binding says you should also have "brcm,brcmnand" > >>> as a last resort. Otherwise (for the NAND parts): > >>> > >> > >> I believe Anup was seeing issues when both "brcm,nand-iproc" and > >> "brcm,brcmnand" are present. > >> > >> Note "brcm,nand-iproc" invokes 'iproc_nand_probe', which calls > >> 'brcmnand_probe' in the end. > >> > >> "brcm,brcmnand" invokes 'brcmstb_nand_probe', which also calls > >> 'brcmstb_probe', but without all the prep configuration required for > >> "brcm,nand-iproc". > > > > Ah, I forgot about that problem. That seems like an OF infrastructure > > issue that could be fixed. We could lump these drivers back together, > > and make sure that "brcm,nand-iproc" gets the priority in the > > of_device_id list. > > > > Or we could just relax the DT binding. > > > > But wait, wouldn't cygnus already have that problem? You're using the > > binding I suggested in arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-cygnus.dtsi. > > Interestingly, we do not see this problem with Cygnus or NSP, but only on NS2 > (arm64 based). There may be a difference between how OF devices are > instantiated between arm and arm64? Alternately, it could be also about order in-which platform drivers are matched for newly created OF device. > > > > > Oh, and I see we hacked this one in drivers/mtd/nand/brcmnand/Makefile: > > > > # link order matters; don't link the more generic brcmstb_nand.o before the > > # more specific iproc_nand.o, for instance > > Yes, I see that too (after sending out my previous email, :)). Maybe > Anup can help to elaborate on the problem. I'm now getting a bit > confused on how the problem can surface on NS2. I think for a newly created OF devices the Linux device driver framework will match the platform drivers in the order in which they are registered by module init functions. Now the order of module init function calls will be based how the .initcall section is formed by linker and order in which objects are linked. IMHO, if multiple platform drivers match given OF device then platform driver with longest matching compatible string should only be probed. I don't know how big change this would be for OF framework. > > But in general, I think it's a good idea to relax the requirement in the > DT binding document to not require "brcm,brcmnand", in the case when > "brcm,nand-iproc" and "brcm,nand-bcm63138" are present. Even I think, it will be good to relax the DT bindings requirement for BRCM NAND driver. Regards, Anup -- 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
