On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 01:11:40PM +0200, Valentin Longchamp wrote: > On 05/15/2014 12:35 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > On 05/15/2014 11:48 AM, Valentin Longchamp wrote: > >> The 98DX4122 dtsi file lacks the defintion of the PCIe controller which > >> is present on this SoC. > > > > Valentin, > > > > good to have you back on 98dx4122. I was already thinking about > > reworking the current kirkwood.dtsi and kirkwood-<soc>.dtsi as I > > feel there may be more issues with "common" IP that was removed > > in 98dx4122. > > > >> The SATA phys must also be explicitely disabled since they are not > >> present on this SoC. If they remain enabled, a hardlock occures when > >> their clock gates are enabled. > > > > While I am ok with disabling now, we should really rethink the > > current SoC-specific includes as we are already facing some issues > > that cause headaches. > > > > Actually, the initial idea was to remove all nodes from kirkwood.dtsi > > that are not available in one of the SoCs and rather put them into > > the SoC-specific include. > > > > But over time we end up with a mix of both, SoC-specific nodes like > > pcie below _and_ SoC-specific fixes like sata-phy below. > > > > To be consitent, we should either duplicate the sata-phy nodes in > > kirkwood-6foo.dtsi - or what I prefer - move most of it back to > > kirkwood.dtsi and use "disabled" in the SoC-specific ones. > > For the sake of the disscussion, we also have some powerPC boards here at > Keymile and there the approach is exactly the one you prefer above. First I was > a bit confused but now I think this approach is "cleaner" (or makes more sense > to me ;-)). No complaints here either. :) thx, Jason. -- 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
