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

Tue Feb 12 11:53:36 CET 2013

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:41:09AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 07:51:55AM +0100, Thierry Reding wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> So it turned out that I need to touch U-Boot anyway, so I decided to
> give this a spin. I noticed that overriding CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE from
> the board configuration file doesn't work currently. What happens is
> that the autoconf.mk (which is derived from the board configuration) is
> included before the CPU config.mk which sets CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE to
> tegra20 (or tegra30, tegra114). I came up with the attached patch to set
> the variable if not set previously (by the board configuration file).
> 
> Feel free to squash that in your patch series if you deem it a proper
> solution. I can also provide a proper separate patch if you prefer.
> 
> Thierry

> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk
> index cb1a19d..e7c22c0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/config.mk
> @@ -16,4 +16,4 @@
>  # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>  # along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>  #
> -CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE := tegra114
> +CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE ?= tegra114
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk
> index 6432e75..9042664 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/config.mk
> @@ -23,4 +23,4 @@
>  # Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston,
>  # MA 02111-1307 USA
>  #
> -CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE := tegra20
> +CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE ?= tegra20
> diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk
> index 719ca81..0035bc5 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk
> +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/config.mk
> @@ -16,4 +16,4 @@
>  # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>  # along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
>  #
> -CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE := tegra30
> +CONFIG_ARCH_DEVICE_TREE ?= tegra30

I forgot: with that patch applied:

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

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/20130212/1cf2fa02/attachment.pgp>