[U-Boot] [PATCH v2 1/2] Tegra: fdt: Add/enhance sdhci (mmc) nodes for all T20 DT files

[Thierry Reding]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:21:59PM -0700, Tom Warren wrote:
> Thierry/Lucas,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Thierry Reding
> <thierry.reding at avionic-design.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:56:33AM -0700, Tom Warren wrote:
> >> Lucas,
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Lucas Stach <dev at lynxeye.de> wrote:
> >> > Hi Tom,
> >> >
> >> > Am Montag, den 11.02.2013, 10:17 -0700 schrieb Tom Warren:
> >> >> Linux dts files were used for those boards that didn't already
> >> >> have sdhci info populated. Tamonten has their own dtsi file with
> >> >> common sdhci nodes (sourced from Linux).
> >> >>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Tom Warren <twarren at nvidia.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> v2:
> >> >> - cleanup comments in dts files/match w/kernel files
> >> >> - add sdhci aliases in all dts files
> >> >> - use tegra20-tamonten.dtsi from the kernel for AD boards
> >> >>
> >> >>  arch/arm/dts/tegra20-tamonten.dtsi               |  489 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >
> >> > I'm not sure if pushing the whole file in this patch is the right thing
> >> > to do.
> >>
> >> I didn't want to edit it since we seem to be moving towards using the
> >> Linux DTS files in toto in U-Boot (as per Stephen & Simon). Does it do
> >> any harm to have the whole thing here? Saves some work later. Thierry
> >> - what do you think?
> >
> > Given that it isn't used anywhere I don't think we really need it right
> > now. We can always add it later when we can make better use of it.
> 
> It actually is used (for SDMMC/sdhci) now, Thierry. That's why it's in
> this patchset.

Right, I hadn't looked at that patch yet.

> I had originally put the sdhci node for Avionic Design
> boards in their respective .dts files, but Stephen pointed out that
> the kernel had a tegra20-tamonten.dtsi file with common info, which
> included the sdhci node, and asked that I use it, instead, so we echo
> the kernel layout. So I pulled that file into my MMC DT patchset, and
> used it in all AD board builds (medcom/tec/plutux) - it's pulled in
> via an override of CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE in the config files.
> 
> So the options seem to be:
> 
> a) Don't use the tamonton dtsi file, and put the sdhci nodes in the AD
> dts files, just like all other boards (this was my V1 approach).
> Vetoed by Stephen.
> b) Use tegra20-tamonten.dtsi as is, identical to the kernel file. If
> necessary, I can move it's inclusion to a separate patch, independent
> of the MMC DT patchset, as suggested by Lucas.
> c) Use tegra20-tamonten.dtsi, but just with the sdhci node (is this
> what you're suggesting, Thierry?). I'd still pull it in via a
> CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE #define in the AD config files.
> 
> Let me know ASAP - I'd like to get V3 upstreamed soon so I can move on
> to work on the T30/T114 MMC patches.

I think option b) sounds fine given that we want to move to the same DTS
as the kernel eventually anyway. So for the Tamonten (and AD board)
pieces, consider this:

	Acked-by: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding at avionic-design.de>

I can't give you a Tested-by because I have a bunch of other things to
take care of and I probably won't get to testing this for a few days.

Thierry
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20130212/186540ad/attachment.pgp>