01.02.2019 18:37, Joseph Lo пишет:
> On 2/1/19 11:13 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 01.02.2019 17:13, Joseph Lo пишет:
>>> On 2/1/19 9:54 PM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/02/2019 13:11, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> 01.02.2019 16:06, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
>>>>>> 01.02.2019 6:36, Joseph Lo пишет:
>>>>>>> Add support for the Tegra210 timer that runs at oscillator clock
>>>>>>> (TMR10-TMR13). We need these timers to work as clock event device and to
>>>>>>> replace the ARMv8 architected timer due to it can't survive across the
>>>>>>> power cycle of the CPU core or CPUPORESET signal. So it can't be a wake-up
>>>>>>> source when CPU suspends in power down state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also convert the original driver to use timer-of API.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> Acked-by: Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>> ---
> snip.
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> +TIMER_OF_DECLARE(tegra210_timer, "nvidia,tegra210-timer", tegra210_timer_init);
>>>>>>> +#else /* CONFIG_ARM */
>>>>>>> +static int __init tegra20_init_timer(struct device_node *np)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> What about T132? Isn't it ARM64 which uses tegra20-timer IP? At least T132 DT suggests so and seems this change will break it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, noticed the "depends on ARM" in Kconfig.. Seems okay then.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a good point, because even though we had 'depends on ARM', this
>>>> still means that the Tegra132 DT is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Joseph, can you take a quick look at Tegra132?
>>>
>>> Hi Jon and Dmitry,
>>>
>>> No worry about T132, T132 uses arch timer (v7). The tegra20 timer driver has never been used. We should fix the dtsi file later.
>>
>> Hi Joseph,
>>
>> So is T132 HW actually incompatible with the tegra20-timer? If it's compatible, then I think the driver's code should be made more universal to support T132.
>>
>
> From HW point of view, the TIMER1 ~ TIMER4 is compatible with "nvidia,tegra20-timer". But Tegra132 actually has 10 timers which are exactly the same as Tegra30. So it should backward compatible with "nvidia,tegra30-timer", which is tegra_wdt driver now. And Tegra132 should never use this driver.
Then shouldn't device tree look like this? Why TMR7-TMR0 are not defined there?
timer@60005000 {
compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-timer", "nvidia,tegra30-timer", "nvidia,tegra20-timer";
reg = <0x0 0x60005000 0x0 0x400>;
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
<GIC_SPI 1 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
<GIC_SPI 41 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
<GIC_SPI 42 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
<GIC_SPI 121 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
<GIC_SPI 152 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
<GIC_SPI 153 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
<GIC_SPI 154 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
<GIC_SPI 155 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
<GIC_SPI 156 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA124_CLK_TIMER>;
clock-names = "timer";
};
TMR 0,6,7,8,9 should define a shared interrupt as well, but seems the shared interrupt provider is not supported in upstream.
Also note that seems T124/132 device tree has a typo (I'm looking at TK1 TRM), TMR6 IRQ is 152 and not 122.
And T30 device tree looks incorrect, TRM says that TMR1-TMR5 have a "dedicated interrupt bit", but not TMR6.
