Hi Jean-Christophe,
I think you are a bit late and the series got taken by Nicolas. Anyway, most of
your comments have been taken care of.
On 17/03/2014 at 12:40:18 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote :
> On 11:05 Mon 03 Mar , Jean-Jacques Hiblot wrote:
> > + usb0: ohci@00500000 {
> > + compatible = "atmel,at91rm9200-ohci", "usb-ohci";
> > + reg = <0x00500000 0x100000>;
> > + interrupts = <20 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 2>;
>
> for 5th time NACK
>
> stop using interrupts une interrupts-extended
As there is only one interrupt controller, I don't see why we would
absolutely need to specify the interrupt controller here.
> > + clocks = <&usb>, <&ohci_clk>, <&hclk0>, <&uhpck>;
> > + clock-names = "usb_clk", "ohci_clk", "hclk", "uhpck";
> > + status = "disabled";
> > + };
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261.c
> > index 6276b4c..5c90581 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9261.c
> > @@ -189,6 +189,23 @@ static struct clk_lookup periph_clocks_lookups[] = {
> > CLKDEV_CON_ID("pioA", &pioA_clk),
> > CLKDEV_CON_ID("pioB", &pioB_clk),
> > CLKDEV_CON_ID("pioC", &pioC_clk),
> > + /* more lookup table for DT entries */
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("usart", "fffff200.serial", &mck),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("usart", "fffb0000.serial", &usart0_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("usart", "ffffb400.serial", &usart1_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("usart", "fff94000.serial", &usart2_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("t0_clk", "fffa0000.timer", &tc0_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("t1_clk", "fffa0000.timer", &tc1_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("t2_clk", "fffa0000.timer", &tc2_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("hclk", "500000.ohci", &hck0),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("hclk", "600000.fb", &hck1),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("spi_clk", "fffc8000.spi", &spi0_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("spi_clk", "fffcc000.spi", &spi1_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID("mci_clk", "fffa8000.mmc", &mmc_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "fffac000.i2c", &twi_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "fffff400.gpio", &pioA_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "fffff600.gpio", &pioB_clk),
> > + CLKDEV_CON_DEV_ID(NULL, "fffff800.gpio", &pioC_clk),
>
> do we really need this?
Yes, until all the SoCs are switch to the CCF, we may build kernel
supporting multiple sam9 SoCs without CCF.
Best regards,
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
