On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 11:17:12AM +0100, Jingchang Lu wrote: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutland@xxxxxxx] > >Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2014 7:21 PM > >To: Lu Jingchang-B35083 > >Cc: shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > >devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Lu Jingchang-B35083 > >Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] ARM: imx: Add initial support for Freescale > >LS1021A > > > >On Wed, Jul 02, 2014 at 10:02:51AM +0100, Jingchang Lu wrote: > >> From: Jingchang Lu <b35083@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-ls1021a.c > >> b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-ls1021a.c > >> new file mode 100644 > >> index 0000000..d1a9bb9 > >> --- /dev/null > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-ls1021a.c > >> @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ > >> +/* > >> + * Copyright 2013-2014 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > >> + * > >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > >> +modify > >> + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published > >> +by > >> + * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or > >> + * (at your option) any later version. > >> + */ > >> + > >> +#include <linux/of_platform.h> > >> +#include <asm/mach/arch.h> > >> + > >> +#include "common.h" > >> + > >> +static const struct of_device_id of_ls1021a_match_table[] = { > >> + { > >> + .compatible = "simple-bus", > >> + }, > >> + { > >> + .compatible = "fsl,ifc", > >> + }, > >> + { > >> + .compatible = "fsl,fpga-qixis", > >> + }, > >> + { > >> + .compatible = "fsl,qe", > >> + }, > >> + {} > >> +}; > > > >Are any of thse not always-on (or default-on) MMIO busses? > > > >Is there any reason for not giving them their own drivers? > > > Normally these are always-on. The child nodes are handled by different drivers, > so to make the devices being added by the of system, they are claimed here. > Thanks. If these are always-on MMIO busses, is there any reason these can't have "simple-bus" as a fallback in their compatible lists in the DT? They would seemd to be compatible with it given they are in the table above... That way we don't need the table at all, and we can always add drivers for them later if we need them... > >> + > >> +static void __init ls1021a_init_machine(void) { > >> + mxc_arch_reset_init_dt(); > > > >This looks to only be used to set up a watchdog timer. Is there any reason > >this logic can't be moved to the watchdog timer driver? > > > >> + > >> +DT_MACHINE_START(LS1021A, "Freescale LS1021A") #ifdef CONFIG_ZONE_DMA > >> + .dma_zone_size = SZ_128M, > >> +#endif > >> + .init_machine = ls1021a_init_machine, > >> + .dt_compat = ls1021a_dt_compat, > >> + .restart = mxc_restart, > > > >AFAICT, that jsut uses the WDT for restart. Why can't the watchdog driver > >register itself as a restart device? > > > >That would bring us close to an empty machine descriptor, and enable reuse > >of the WDT and those busses. > > > >Thanks, > >Mark. > Yes, we use the watchdog timer for restart, just as i.MX and Vybrid, the WDT as a > common driver it is still work for watchdog. Thanks. That doesn't answer the question of why the restart code (and registration thereof) can't live in the WDT driver. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
