Hi all !
So what's the status of these patch? Matteo, are you working on a v2
patch series ?
Raphaël
2014-06-25 8:42 GMT+02:00 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 09:45:49AM +0800, Bo Shen wrote:
>> Hi Matteo,
>> Thanks for your patch.
>>
>> Hi Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
>> For this patch series, can you give some comments (maybe the
>> question from I need more discussion)? Thanks.
>>
>> On 06/24/2014 07:26 PM, Matteo Fortini wrote:
>> >As stated in section 29.19.35 of SAMA5D3 Series Datasheet,
>> >MODE register has offset 0x10 and at offset 0x0C there is
>> >a TIMINGS register.
>> >
>> >Signed-off-by: Matteo Fortini <matteo.fortini@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >---
>> > arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>> > arch/arm/mach-at91/sam9_smc.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++
>> > 2 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> >diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h
>> >index d5cf5f7..e4f0f54 100644
>> >--- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h
>> >+++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/at91sam9_smc.h
>> >@@ -45,10 +45,24 @@ struct sam9_smc_config {
>> > u8 tdf_cycles:4;
>> > };
>> >
>> >+struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config {
>>
>> Nitpick: I am thinking another name, maybe: sama5d3_timing_config (?)
>>
>> >+ /* Timings register */
>> >+ u8 tclr;
>> >+ u8 tadl;
>> >+ u8 tar;
>> >+ u8 ocms;
>> >+ u8 trr;
>> >+ u8 twb;
>> >+ u8 rbnsel;
>> >+ u8 nfsel;
>> >+};
>> >+
>> > extern void sam9_smc_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
>> > extern void sam9_smc_read(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
>> > extern void sam9_smc_read_mode(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
>> > extern void sam9_smc_write_mode(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
>> >+
>> >+extern void sam9_smc_sama5d3_configure(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config, struct sam9_smc_sama5d3_extra_config *sama5d3_extra_config);
>>
>> Ditto
>>
>> > #endif
>> >
>> > #define AT91_SMC_SETUP 0x00 /* Setup Register for CS n */
>> >@@ -77,7 +91,25 @@ extern void sam9_smc_write_mode(int id, int cs, struct sam9_smc_config *config);
>> > #define AT91_SMC_NRDCYCLE (0x1ff << 16) /* Total Read Cycle Length */
>> > #define AT91_SMC_NRDCYCLE_(x) ((x) << 16)
>> >
>> >-#define AT91_SMC_MODE 0x0c /* Mode Register for CS n */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TIMINGS 0x0c /* Timings register for CS n */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TCLR (0x0f << 0) /* CLE to REN Low Delay */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TCLR_(x) ((x) << 0)
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TADL (0x0f << 4) /* ALE to Data Start */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TADL_(x) ((x) << 4)
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TAR (0x0f << 8) /* ALE to REN Low Delay */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TAR_(x) ((x) << 8)
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_OCMS (0x1 << 12) /* Off Chip Memory Scrambling Enable */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_OCMS_(x) ((x) << 12)
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TRR (0x0f << 16) /* Ready to REN Low Delay */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TRR_(x) ((x) << 16)
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TWB (0x0f << 24) /* WEN High to REN to Busy */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_TWB_(x) ((x) << 24)
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_RBNSEL (0x07 << 28) /* Ready/Busy Line Selection */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_RBNSEL_(x) ((x) << 28)
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_NFSEL (0x01 << 31) /* Nand Flash Selection */
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_NFSEL_(x) ((x) << 31)
>> >+
>> >+#define AT91_SMC_MODE ((at91_soc_initdata.type == AT91_SOC_SAMA5D3) ? 0x10 : 0x0c) /* Mode Register for CS n */
>>
>> Here make me thinking more, if new SoC added and MODE register's
>> offset is the same as sama5d3, then it will be:
>> (at91_soc_initdata.type == AT91_SOC_SAMA5D3) ||
>> (at91_soc_initdata.type == AT91_SOC_NEW1) || (at91_soc_initdata.type
>> == AT91_SOC_NEW2)
>>
>> Will this be acceptable?
>
> No.
>
> I think two SoC specific defines, for example
>
> #define AT91_SMC_MODE 0xc
> #define AT91_SAMA5_SMC_MODE 0x10
>
> and handling the differences in the code will scale better. I don't like
> hiding SoC differences in defines like done in this patch. If there show
> up even more differences a SoC specific struct with register offsets
> might help.
>
> Sascha
>
> --
> Pengutronix e.K. | |
> Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
> Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |
> Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
>
> _______________________________________________
> barebox mailing list
> barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
