* Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> [200227 21:29]: > On 2/26/20 8:07 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > * Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> [200227 00:59]: > >> Hi Tony, > >> > >> On 2/26/20 4:39 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>> * Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> [200226 22:38]: > >>>> * Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> [200226 20:35]: > >>>>> On 2/26/20 12:29 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >>>>>> * Suman Anna <s-anna@xxxxxx> [200225 20:47]: > >>>>>>> The PRU-ICSS target module node was left in disabled state in the base > >>>>>>> am33xx-l4.dtsi file. Enable this node on all the AM335x beaglebone > >>>>>>> boards as they mostly use a AM3358 or a AM3359 SoC which do contain > >>>>>>> the PRU-ICSS IP. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Just get rid of the top level status = "disabled". The default > >>>>>> is enabled, and the device is there for sure inside the SoC. > >>>>>> And then there's no need for pointless status = "okay" tinkering > >>>>>> in the board specific dts files so no need for this patch. > >>>>> > >>>>> The IP is not available on all SoCs, and there are about 40 different > >>>>> board files atm across AM33xx and AM437x, and am not sure what SoCs they > >>>>> are actually using. > >>>> > >>>> Oh that issue again.. Maybe take a look at patch "[PATCH 2/3] bus: ti-sysc: > >>>> Detect display subsystem related devices" if you can add runtime > >>>> detection for the accelerators there similar to what I hadded for omap3. > >>>> acclerators. > >>> > >>> Sorry I meant instead patch "[PATCH 6/7] bus: ti-sysc: Implement SoC > >>> revision handling". > >> > >> OK, looked down that path a bit more and looking through mach-omap2/id.c > >> and soc.h, I see some of the part number infrastructure build on top of > >> DEV_FEATURE bits for some SoCs. The DEVICE_ID registers only have the > >> generic family and the Silicon Revision number for AM33xx and AM437x and > >> we currently do not have any infrastructure around exact SoC > >> identification for AM33xx and AM437x atleast. > >> > >> Do you have the bit-field split for the DEV_FEATURE bits somewhere, > >> because I couldn't find any in either the DM or the TRM. On AM437x, > >> there is no difference between AM4372 and AM4376 DEV_FEATURE value even > >> though the former doesn't have the PRUSS. On AM335x, may be bit 0 > >> signifies the presence of PRUSS?? > > > > OK not sure how that could be detected. Maybe check the efuses on > > the newer SoCs? > > OK, latest datasheeet has fixed these values up, and they are no longer > identical. In anycase, none of the current AM437x board dts files in the > kernel use AM4372, so atleast for AM4372, I can drop the status=disabled > even without adding any SoC name support. OK sounds good to me. Thanks, Tony
