1;5201;0c
On Sun, May 13, 2018 at 12:37:49PM -0700, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 06:19:51PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> 于 2018年5月2日 GMT+08:00 下午5:53:21, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> 写到:
> >> >On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Maxime Ripard
> >> ><maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 12:12:27AM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> >> >>> From: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxx>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Allwinner A64 has a SRAM controller, and in the device tree
> >> >currently
> >> >>> we have a syscon node to enable EMAC driver to access the EMAC clock
> >> >>> register. As SRAM controller driver can now export regmap for this
> >> >>> register, replace the syscon node to the SRAM controller device
> >> >node,
> >> >>> and let EMAC driver to acquire its EMAC clock regmap.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxx>
> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
> >> >>> ---
> >> >>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi | 23
> >> >+++++++++++++++----
> >> >>> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
> >> >b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
> >> >>> index 1b2ef28c42bd..1c37659d9d41 100644
> >> >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
> >> >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
> >> >>> @@ -168,10 +168,25 @@
> >> >>> #size-cells = <1>;
> >> >>> ranges;
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - syscon: syscon@1c00000 {
> >> >>> - compatible =
> >> >"allwinner,sun50i-a64-system-controller",
> >> >>> - "syscon";
> >> >>> + sram_controller: sram-controller@1c00000 {
> >> >>> + compatible =
> >> >"allwinner,sun50i-a64-sram-controller";
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think there's anything preventing us from keeping the
> >> >> -system-controller compatible. It's what was in the DT before, and
> >> >> it's how it's called in the datasheet.
> >> >
> >> >I actually meant to ask you about this. The -system-controller
> >> >compatible matches the datasheet better. Maybe we should just
> >> >switch to that one?
> >>
> >> No, if we do the switch the system-controller compatible,
> >> the device will be probed on the same memory region with
> >> a syscon on old DTs.
> >
> > The device hasn't magically changed either. Maybe we just need to add
> > a check to make sure we don't have the syscon compatible in the SRAM
> > driver probe so that the double driver issue doesn't happen?
>
> The syscon interface (which is not even a full blown device driver)
> only looks at the "syscon" compatible. Either way we're removing that
> part from the device tree so things should be ok for new device trees.
> As Maxime mentioned we can do a check for the syscon compatible and
> either give a warning to the user asking them to update their device
> tree, or not register our custom regmap, or not probe the SRAM driver.
> Personally I prefer the first option. The system controller block is
> probed before any syscon users, so we should be fine, given the dwmac
> driver goes the custom regmap path first.
>
> BTW, I still might end up changing the compatible. The manual uses
> "system control", not "system controller", which I think makes sense,
> since it is just a bunch of register files, kind of like the GRF
> (General Register Files) block found in Rockchip SoCs [1], and not an
> actual "controller".
I'm not really fond of that, but we should at least make it consistent
on the other patches Paul sent then.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
