From: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>
To: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com>
Cc: barebox@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: mvebu: Simplify memory init order
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 08:45:03 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140917064503.GM4992@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54189818.6000300@gmail.com>
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@pengutronix.de>
>
> 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?
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@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-17 6:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-15 7:41 mvebu multi SoC support Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 7:41 ` [PATCH 1/5] ARM: mvebu: Add common reset_cpu function Sascha Hauer
2014-09-16 19:17 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-09-17 6:32 ` Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 7:41 ` [PATCH 2/5] ARM: mvebu: Simplify memory init order Sascha Hauer
2014-09-16 20:05 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-09-17 6:45 ` Sascha Hauer [this message]
2014-09-17 7:19 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-09-17 7:29 ` Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 7:41 ` [PATCH 3/5] ARM: mvebu: Check for correct SoC in of_fixup callback Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 7:41 ` [PATCH 4/5] ARM: mvebu: Allow multiple SoCs Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 8:00 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-09-15 9:13 ` Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 21:12 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-09-16 6:00 ` Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 7:41 ` [PATCH 5/5] ARM: Add mvebu_defconfig Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 21:15 ` Sebastian Hesselbarth
2014-09-16 6:05 ` Sascha Hauer
2014-09-15 8:09 ` mvebu multi SoC support Ezequiel Garcia
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140917064503.GM4992@pengutronix.de \
--to=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=barebox@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox