On 08/17/2014 07:50 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
On 07/30/2014 01:22 PM, tthayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Thor Thayer <tthayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Add the Altera SDRAM controller bindings and device tree changes to the Altera SoC project.
Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <tthayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2: Changes to SoC SDRAM EDAC code.
v3: Implement code suggestions for SDRAM EDAC code.
v4: Remove syscon from SDRAM controller bindings.
v5: No Change, bump version for consistency.
v6: Only map the ctrlcfg register as syscon.
v7: No change. Bump for consistency.
v8: No change. Bump for consistency.
v9: Changes to support a MFD SDRAM controller with nested EDAC.
---
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdr.txt | 13 +++++++++++++
arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi | 10 ++++++++++
2 files changed, 23 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdr.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdr.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdr.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2bb1ddf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdr.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Altera SOCFPGA SDRAM Controller
+The SDRAM controller is implemented as a MFD so various drivers may
+nest under this main SDRAM controller binding.
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible : "altr,sdr";
+- reg : Should contain 1 register range(address and length)
+
+Example:
+ sdr@0xffc25000 {
+ compatible = "altr,sdr";
+ reg = <0xffc25000 0x1000>;
+ };
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi
index 4676f25..ecb306d 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi
@@ -603,6 +603,16 @@
};
};
+ sdr@0xffc25000 {
+ compatible = "altr,sdr";
+ reg = <0xffc25000 0x1000>;
+
+ sdramedac@0 {
+ compatible = "altr,sdram-edac";
+ interrupts = <0 39 4>;
+ };
This doesn't match the documentation, but I don't think this is a move
in the right direction anyway. Because Linux has/wants an MFD driver is
not a reason to add a sub node. It is a single h/w block and DT should
reflect that.
Rob
Hi Rob,
Thanks for reviewing. After discussions with the community and
internally, I reverted to using the syscon case in revision 10. I
apologize for the confusion but the syscon method seems to be a cleaner
solution. I submitted the sycon version on 8/11/14.
Thanks,
Thor
--
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
