Hi Martin,
> Martin Sperl <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> hat am 9. September 2016 um 20:12
> geschrieben:
>
>
>
> > On 09.09.2016, at 17:36, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Martin Sperl <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> hat am 9. September 2016 um 16:58
> >> geschrieben:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> On 09.09.2016, at 16:25, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 09.09.2016 um 09:49 schrieb kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> >>>> From: Martin Sperl <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>
> >>>> Add the node for the thermal sensor of the bcm2835-soc
> >>>> to the device tree.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Sperl <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> Reviewed-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi | 6 ++++++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi
> >>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi
> >>>> index b982522..e2e3a46 100644
> >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi
> >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi
> >>>> @@ -186,6 +186,12 @@
> >>>> interrupts = <2 14>; /* pwa1 */
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> + thermal: thermal@0x7e212000 {
please remove 0x here.
> >>>> + compatible = "brcm,bcm2835-thermal";
> >>>> + reg = <0x7e212000 0x8>;
> >>>> + clocks = <&clocks BCM2835_CLOCK_TSENS>;
> >>>> + };
> >>>> +
> >>>
> >>> Since the driver handles 3 different SoC (2835, 2836, 2837). This node
> >>> should be defined in the SoC specific dtsi files, because the BCM2836
> >>> includes bcm283x.dtsi too.
> >>>
> >>> Be aware the patch for bcm2837 must go to ARM64.
> >>
> >> I can not really follow:
> >> * the node is defined in the dtsi included by all 3 soc,
> >> and it is available on all so it sits where for example
> >> spi0 or uart0 is located
> >> * as for arm64: this describes the registers that are
> >> identical for arm and arm64 and the bcm2837.dtsi
> >> is also including ../../../../arm/boot/dts/bcm283x.dtsi
> >>
> >> So what is the problem?
> >
> > The thermal driver specifies 3 different compatibles with partially
> > different
> > settings.
> > If this patch is applied, all SoC (bcm2835, bcm2836, bcm2837) would use the
> > bcm2835 settings.
> > I can't believe this is intended.
> >
> > Why does the binding contains 3 different compatibles if only one is used?
>
> Now I understand - did not think of that: good catch!
>
> To minimize the patch: what about setting it to 2837 by default (in 283x.dtsi)
> and only change compatible in 2835.dtsi and 2836.dtsi - that is 3 files
> changed instead of 4 or 5...
Please don't do this in order avoid to confusion. We have compatible strings for
each SoC and we have dtsi files for each SoC. So i think the right way would be
the following:
bcm283x.dtsi
thermal: thermal@7e212000 {
reg = <0x7e212000 0x8>;
clocks = <&clocks BCM2835_CLOCK_TSENS>;
};
bcm2835.dtsi
&thermal {
compatible = "brcm,bcm2835-thermal";
status = "okay";
};
bcm2836.dtsi
&thermal {
compatible = "brcm,bcm2836-thermal";
status = "okay";
};
bcm2837.dtsi
&thermal {
compatible = "brcm,bcm2837-thermal";
status = "okay";
};
>
> Or any other ideas how to detect which Soc we run on during runtime?
> I.e: query the root compatible string in the device-tree?
>
> Just before I create a new patch set to fix that.
>
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
--
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
