Thanks Arnd,
On 7 January 2014 18:54, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 18:29:00 Rahul Sharma wrote:
>> From: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> This patch add basic arch side support for exynos5260 SoC.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K <arun.kk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> index 09e6898..e0c7108 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ static const char name_exynos4210[] = "EXYNOS4210";
>> static const char name_exynos4212[] = "EXYNOS4212";
>> static const char name_exynos4412[] = "EXYNOS4412";
>> static const char name_exynos5250[] = "EXYNOS5250";
>> +static const char name_exynos5260[] = "EXYNOS5260";
>> static const char name_exynos5410[] = "EXYNOS5410";
>> static const char name_exynos5420[] = "EXYNOS5420";
>> static const char name_exynos5440[] = "EXYNOS5440";
>> @@ -92,6 +93,12 @@ static struct cpu_table cpu_ids[] __initdata = {
>> .init = exynos_init,
>> .name = name_exynos5410,
>> }, {
>> + .idcode = EXYNOS5260_SOC_ID,
>> + .idmask = EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK,
>> + .map_io = exynos5_map_io,
>> + .init = exynos_init,
>> + .name = name_exynos5260,
>> + }, {
>> .idcode = EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID,
>> .idmask = EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK,
>> .map_io = exynos5_map_io,
>
> I think we've seen enough of these. Please generalize it enough
> so we won't need to add any more entries whenever a new SoC
> comes up. It's probably fine for now to have to tell the difference
> between EXYNOS4 and EXYNOS5, but not new chips within some family.
>
> According to rumors on the web, EXYNOS6 is going to be released
> soon with a 64-bit CPU in it, and since we don't allow platform
> specific code for arm64 like this any more, you should just
> drop it for arm32 as well.
I agree with you. Let me explore options to optimize this part of the
code. I prefer
to add code here (along with legacy ) to accept DT bindings for Exynos5 family
SoCs and use them for Exynos5260. Next, I will migrate the rest of the existing
platforms and get rid of existing platform code.
>
>> @@ -279,6 +286,15 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5_iodesc[] __initdata = {
>> },
>> };
>>
>> +static struct map_desc exynos5260_iodesc[] __initdata = {
>> + {
>> + .virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS,
>> + .pfn = __phys_to_pfn(EXYNOS5260_PA_SYSRAM_NS),
>> + .length = SZ_4K,
>> + .type = MT_DEVICE,
>> + },
>> +};
>> +
>> void exynos4_restart(enum reboot_mode mode, const char *cmd)
>> {
>> __raw_writel(0x1, S5P_SWRESET);
>
> The only difference you have is the map descriptor, and that should
> go away if you only add a proper DT binding for SYSRAM. Try to get
> rid of the remaining map_desc entries while you're at it.
>
Ok. let me check this.
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h
>> index 31cac97..13c802b 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h
>> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@
>>
>> #define S5P_VA_SYSRAM S3C_ADDR(0x02400000)
>> #define S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS S3C_ADDR(0x02410000)
>> +
>> #define S5P_VA_DMC0 S3C_ADDR(0x02440000)
>> #define S5P_VA_DMC1 S3C_ADDR(0x02480000)
>> #define S5P_VA_SROMC S3C_ADDR(0x024C0000)
>>
>
> This hunk doesn't really belong in the patch at all.
I will move it to correct patch.
Regards,
Rahul Sharma
>
> Arnd
--
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
