On 01/04/2021 at 12:24, Claudiu Beznea - M18063 wrote:
On 01.04.2021 12:38, Claudiu Beznea - M18063 wrote:
On 31.03.2021 19:01, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
On 31/03/2021 13:59:06+0300, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
From: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Introduce new family of SoCs, sama7, and first SoC, sama7g5.
Signed-off-by: Eugen Hristev <eugen.hristev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile | 1 +
arch/arm/mach-at91/sama7.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 49 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-at91/sama7.c
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
index f565490f1b70..6cc6624cddac 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Makefile
@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_AT91SAM9) += at91sam9.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_SAM9X60) += sam9x60.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_SAMA5) += sama5.o
obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_SAMV7) += samv7.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_SAMA7) += sama7.o
# Power Management
obj-$(CONFIG_ATMEL_PM) += pm.o pm_suspend.o
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/sama7.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/sama7.c
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..e04cadb569ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/sama7.c
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later
+/*
+ * Setup code for SAMA7
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 2021 Microchip Technology, Inc. and its subsidiaries
+ *
+ */
+
+#include <linux/of.h>
+#include <linux/of_platform.h>
+
+#include <asm/mach/arch.h>
+#include <asm/system_misc.h>
+
+#include "generic.h"
+
+static void __init sama7_common_init(void)
+{
+ of_platform_default_populate(NULL, NULL, NULL);
Is this necessary? This is left as a workaround for the old SoCs using
pinctrl-at91. I guess this will be using pio4 so this has to be removed.
OK, I'll have a look. BTW, SAMA5D2 which is also using PIO4 calls
of_platform_default_populate(NULL, NULL, NULL);
Without this call the PM code (arch/arm/mach-at/pm.c) is not able to locate
proper DT nodes:
[ 0.194615] at91_pm_backup_init: failed to find securam device!
[ 0.201393] at91_pm_sram_init: failed to find sram device!
[ 0.207449] AT91: PM not supported, due to no SRAM allocated
Okay, so we can't afford removing these calls to sama5d2 and upcoming
sama7g5 right now.
Is it a common pattern to have to reach DT content in the early stages
that explicit call to of_platform_default_populate() tries to solve?
Best regards,
Nicolas
+}
+
+static void __init sama7_dt_device_init(void)
+{
+ sama7_common_init();
+}
+
+static const char *const sama7_dt_board_compat[] __initconst = {
+ "microchip,sama7",
+ NULL
+};
+
+DT_MACHINE_START(sama7_dt, "Microchip SAMA7")
+ /* Maintainer: Microchip */
+ .init_machine = sama7_dt_device_init,
+ .dt_compat = sama7_dt_board_compat,
+MACHINE_END
+
+static const char *const sama7g5_dt_board_compat[] __initconst = {
+ "microchip,sama7g5",
+ NULL
+};
+
+DT_MACHINE_START(sama7g5_dt, "Microchip SAMA7G5")
+ /* Maintainer: Microchip */
+ .init_machine = sama7_dt_device_init,
+ .dt_compat = sama7g5_dt_board_compat,
+MACHINE_END
+
--
2.25.1
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
--
Nicolas Ferre
