On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 09:19:33AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > On 09/17/2014 08:45 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:05:44PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > >>On 09/15/2014 09:41 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > >>>The initialisation of the memory nodes on mvebu is a bit > >>>compilcated: > >>> > >>>pure_initcall(mvebu_memory_fixup_register) > >>> of_register_fixup(mvebu_memory_of_fixup, NULL) > >>>core_initcall(kirkwood_init_soc) > >>> mvebu_set_memory() > >>>core_initcall(of_arm_init) > >>> of_fix_tree() > >>> mvebu_memory_of_fixup() > >>> > >>>First a mvebu common of_fixup function is registered, then the SoC > >>>calls mvebu_set_memory which stores the memory base and size in global > >>>variables. Afterwards the of_fixup is executed which fixes the memory > >>>nodes according to the global variables. > >>> > >>>Instead register a SoC specific fixup which directly calls mvebu_set_memory > >>>with the memory base and size as arguments: > >>> > >>>pure_initcall(kirkwood_register_soc_fixup); > >>> of_register_fixup(kirkwood_init_soc, NULL); > >>>core_initcall(of_arm_init) > >>> of_fix_tree() > >>> kirkwood_init_soc() > >>> mvebu_set_memory(phys_base, phys_size); > >>> > >>>Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >>Hmm, this breaks Armada 370 and most likely also Armada XP. Actually, > >>it breaks any SoC that has a DTB with internal regs set to 0xd0000000. > >> > >>>--- > >>> arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c | 9 ++++++-- > >>> arch/arm/mach-mvebu/common.c | 34 ++++++++++--------------------- > >>> arch/arm/mach-mvebu/dove.c | 9 ++++++-- > >>> arch/arm/mach-mvebu/include/mach/common.h | 2 +- > >>> arch/arm/mach-mvebu/kirkwood.c | 9 ++++++-- > >>> 5 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-) > >>> > >>>diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c b/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c > >>>index 6251100..5c8499b 100644 > >>>--- a/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c > >>>+++ b/arch/arm/mach-mvebu/armada-370-xp.c > >>>@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ static void __noreturn armada_370_xp_reset_cpu(unsigned long addr) > >>> ; > >>> } > >>> > >>>-static int armada_370_xp_init_soc(void) > >>>+static int armada_370_xp_init_soc(struct device_node *root, void *context) > >>> { > >>> unsigned long phys_base, phys_size; > >>> u32 reg; > >>>@@ -74,4 +74,9 @@ static int armada_370_xp_init_soc(void) > >> > >>Because armada_370_xp_init_soc() does > >> > >> mvebu_mbus_add_range(0xf0, 0x01, MVEBU_REMAP_INT_REG_BASE); > >> > >>right above, which will add the range(s) required for internal register > >>of_fixup. Since this patch moved armada_370_xp_init_soc to the > >>of_fixups, we don't fix this up for the initial DT tree. > >> > >>> > >>> return 0; > >>> } > >>>-core_initcall(armada_370_xp_init_soc); > >>>+ > >>>+static int armada_370_register_soc_fixup(void) > >>>+{ > >> > >>I guess moving mvebu_mbus_add_range() in here does not work, because > >>it will add the armada_370_xp range also for dove and kirkwood. > > > >Do we need a separate of_fixup registered for fixing up the mbus? Can't > >we just call mvebu_mbus_of_fixup() directly from mvebu_mbus_add_range()? > > > >This won't be very efficient for dove which calls mvebu_mbus_add_range() > >twice so it has to iterate over the device tree twice, but it should > >work, right? > > It is not the number of iterations I am concerned about. In a Multi-SoC > environment, we add ranges for MBUS_ID(0xf0, 0x01) three times anyway > plus Dove's MBUS_ID(0xf0, 0x02). > > Currently, we are lucky that MBUS_ID(0xf0, 0x01) is the same for all > SoCs and MBUS_ID(0xf0, 0x02) is exclusive for Dove. If we cross our > fingers and hope it will never change, we can just do: > > static int dove_register_soc_fixup(void) > { > mvebu_mbus_add_range(0xf0, 0x01, MVEBU_REMAP_INT_REG_BASE); > mvebu_mbus_add_range(0xf0, 0x02, DOVE_REMAP_MC_REGS); > return of_register_fixup(dove_init_soc, NULL); > } > pure_initcall(dove_register_soc_fixup); > > and > > static int armada_370_xp_register_soc_fixup(void) > { > mvebu_mbus_add_range(0xf0, 0x01, MVEBU_REMAP_INT_REG_BASE); > return of_register_fixup(armada_370_xp_init_soc, NULL); > } > pure_initcall(armada_370_xp_register_soc_fixup); > > and the same for Kirkwood. > > If we want to make it safe for any future SoC that might break the > MBUS_ID() assumptions above, we can add the machine_id compatible > to mvebu_mbus_add_range(), i.e. > > static int armada_370_xp_register_soc_fixup(void) > { > mvebu_mbus_add_range("marvell,armada-370-xp", 0xf0, 0x01, > MVEBU_REMAP_INT_REG_BASE); > return of_register_fixup(armada_370_xp_init_soc, NULL); > } > pure_initcall(armada_370_xp_register_soc_fixup); > > If you put your current series into some branch I can pull, I can > add the required patches later today. I pushed it to the work/mvebu-multisoc branch in the master repository. It should have your previous comments integrated. 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