* Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> [150311 10:18]:
> On 03/11/2015 11:26 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Dave Gerlach <d-gerlach@xxxxxx> [150310 12:55]:
> >> Suman and I have been looking at this together, so I can comment here. An
> >> implementation like this is what Suman is referring to:
> >>
> >> + l4_wkup: l4_wkup@44c00000 {
> >> + compatible = "am335-l4-wkup", "simple-bus";
> >> + #address-cells = <2>;
> >> + #size-cells = <1>;
> >> + ranges = <0 0 0x44c00000 0x100000>,
> >> + <1 0x0 0x44d00000 0x4000>,
> >> + <2 0x80000 0x44d80000 0x2000>;
>
> Actually, this would be slightly different, something like
> + ranges = <0 0 0x44c00000 0x100000>,
> + <1 0 0x44d00000 0x100000>,
> + <2 0 0x44e00000 0x4000>,
> + <3 0 0x44e10000 0x2000>;
>
> and the M3 DMEM entry below will be adjusted as <1 0x80000 0x2000>.
>
> >> +
> >> + wkup_m3: wkup_m3@1,0 {
> >> + compatible = "ti,am3353-wkup-m3";
> >> + reg = <1 0x0 0x4000>, /* M3 UMEM */
> >> + <2 0x80000 0x2000>; /* M3 DMEM */
> >> +
> >> + ti,hwmods = "wkup_m3";
> >> + ti,pm-firmware = "am335x-pm-firmware.elf";
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +
> >>
> >> The of_* layer automatically translates everything so the pdata-quirks can still
> >> match based on wkup_m3@44d00000. The existing wkup_m3_rproc driver works almost
> >> entirely as is with this, all cpu addresses are read and mapped correctly but
> >> the driver no longer will read the actual device addresses correctly which we
> >> need for understanding where to load the firmware sections.
> >
> > OK. I still don't quite understand how these additional ranges make sense
> > for other drivers connected to the l4_wkup. For wkup_m3, it makes sense if
> > it allows you to translate directly to the m3 address space, but is that
> > really the case here? Maybe you should have the ranges in wkup_m3 instead
> > if you want addresses for the m3?
>
> The idea is to introduce an additional address element (first cell in
> ranges) so that the immediate child nodes bus address is referenced as 0
> (second cell) for translation for their child nodes. This is the
> approach used by the current scm node in Tero's series for OMAP4+. This
> will work tomorrow if we move the prcm, scrm node under l4_wkup with
> changes only in those nodes, and have their child nodes reg properties
> unchanged. I guess you can see the difference between the following two
> patches from Tero's PRCM series,
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5882831/ &
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5882841/
Well I just commented on Tero on that regarding the dra7 patch. I think
we need to have separate scm instances for scm_device, scm_core and
scm_wkup instead of doing multiple ranges. This based on looking at for
example 5432 TRM "Figure 18-1. Control Module Overview".
But here I think it's a different issue. You want to use ranges for getting
the m3 address space for the firmware? I'm not convinced we should
complicate the ranges for all l4_wkup drivers because of that.
Regards,
Tony
--
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
