Hi Arnd,
On 18 February 2014 16:33, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tuesday 18 February 2014 16:27:54 Rahul Sharma wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> index 7654f19..1cc52c9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.c
>> @@ -176,6 +176,15 @@ static struct map_desc exynos5250_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,
>> + },
>> +};
>> +
>> static struct map_desc exynos5_iodesc[] __initdata = {
>> {
>> .virtual = (unsigned long)S3C_VA_SYS,
>> @@ -331,6 +340,8 @@ static void __init exynos_map_io(void)
>> iotable_init(exynos4x12_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4x12_iodesc));
>> if (soc_is_exynos5250())
>> iotable_init(exynos5250_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5250_iodesc));
>> + if (soc_is_exynos5260())
>> + iotable_init(exynos5260_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5260_iodesc));
>> }
>
> As I commented before, I think we really shouldn't do this any more: There
> is no excuse why you still need to add SoC specific code here. Please put
> the SYSRAM into DT and make a proper abstraction for it so you don't have
> to modify the kernel every time a new SoC variant comes out.
Do we have any bindings already defined for this kind of stuff or is
this implemented in
any other platform/architecture for reference?
--
With warm regards,
Sachin
--
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
