On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 02:33:40PM +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, 4 Mar 2013, Magnus Damm wrote: > > > Hi Simon, > > > > [Added Guennadi to CC] > > > > On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 01, 2013 at 10:21:27AM -0600, Bastian Hecht wrote: > > >> 2013/3/1 Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > >> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:03:28AM -0600, Bastian Hecht wrote: > > >> >> We can now use the Device Tree for bringing up our serial devices. We > > >> >> need to add an alternative early_devices list in setup-r8a7740 without > > >> >> the serial devices and move them into the Armadillo-reference .dts config file. > > >> > > > >> > Hi Bastian, > > >> > > > >> > could you please refresh this patch on top of the current topic/intc-of. > > >> > In particular, it conflicts with changes made by: > > >> > > > >> > ARM: shmobile: r8a7740: Do not use early devices with DT reference > > >> > > >> Sure. > > >> > > >> I've prepared the patch - but I start to wonder if the DT > > >> specification for the SCIF devices should go into r8a7740.dtsi rather > > >> than r8a7740-armadillo-reference.dts. So far it's included in > > >> setup-r8a7740.c and not in the board code - that's a strong indication > > >> for it, no? > > > > > > I forget exactly how the discussion went, but for the kzm9g the > > > SDHI has ended up in the dts file for the board not the sh73a0 SoC. > > > > > > So I assume that r8a7740-armadillo-reference.dts is the correct place > > > for SDHI on the armadillo. > > > > > > Magnus, can you confirm that SDHI belongs to the board not the SoC? > > > > What does the data sheet say? > > > > The SDHI hardware block is included in the SoC. It may however need > > some board specific configuration. I believe the correct way is to > > define the common parts in the SoC-specific dtsi file and add > > board-specific configuration in the board-specific dts file. Perhaps > > you can consult Guennadi about this, he has been tasked with SDHI and > > MMCIF. > > That would be the best, I agree. However, we discussed this already on the > example of mmcif, you might remember. I asked what's the difference > between extending a DT node (from .dtsi) with additional properties (in a > board-specific .dts) using an "&phandle" syntax and a full path? Or are > they equivalent? There was no reply, so, for such nodes (MMC/SD) I so far > settled with complete nodes in .dts. We do use the "&phandle" syntax for > pinctrl function groups, for I2C devices. I used a complete path for > CPUFreq... Mostly because other platforms did that too. I am confused. Using phandle syntax we can add a device to an soc's dtsi file and then add extra properties in the board file. This seems to be match the HW well. What is your alternate suggestion? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
