[U-Boot] [PATCH 06/10] arm: socfpga: arria10: Added drivers for Arria10 Reset Manager

[Chee, Tien Fong]

On Jum, 2016-12-09 at 13:51 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 11:04 AM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
> > 
> > On Rab, 2016-12-07 at 14:58 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > 
> > > On 12/07/2016 12:58 PM, Chee, Tien Fong wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On Sel, 2016-12-06 at 13:55 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 12/06/2016 09:08 AM, Chee Tien Fong wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee at intel.com>
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Drivers for reset manager is restructured such that common
> > > > > > functions,
> > > > > > gen5 drivers and Arria10 drivers are moved to
> > > > > > reset_manager.c,
> > > > > > reset_manager_gen5.c and reset_manager_arria10.c
> > > > > > respectively.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tien Fong Chee <tien.fong.chee at intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Marek Vasut <marex at denx.de>
> > > > > > Cc: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen at kernel.org>
> > > > > > Cc: Chin Liang See <chin.liang.see at intel.com>
> > > > > > Cc: Tien Fong <skywindctf at gmail.com>
> > > [...]
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > +void reset_deassert_dedicated_peripherals(void)
> > > > > > +{
> > > > > > +	int i;
> > > > > > +	u32 mask0 = 0;
> > > > > > +	u32 mask1 = 0;
> > > > > > +	u32 pinmux_addr =
> > > > > > SOCFPGA_PINMUX_DEDICATED_IO_ADDRESS;
> > > > > > +	u32 mask = 0;
> > > > > > +#if defined(CONFIG_MMC)
> > > > > > +	mask |= ALT_RSTMGR_PER0MODRST_SDMMCECC_SET_MSK;
> > > > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_CADENCE_QSPI)
> > > > > > +	mask |= ALT_RSTMGR_PER0MODRST_QSPIECC_SET_MSK;
> > > > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_NAND_DENALI)
> > > > > > +	mask |= ALT_RSTMGR_PER0MODRST_NANDECC_SET_MSK;
> > > > > > +#else
> > > > > Shouldn't this come from OF instead of being ifdef'd ?
> > > > > 
> > > > What is OF?
> > > Device Tree (Open Firmware).
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > what is your suggestion to make this function generic for
> > > > all type of flash?
> > > Pull it from OF ?
> > > 
> > Why you prefer device tree implementation over #define in
> > defconfig,
> > because there is performance penalty.
> Because we are moving away from excessive random #defines and toward
> having one single binary where you could exchange just the DT and run
> it on multiple boards, just like Linux, that is the ultimate goal.
> 
> Also, this is not performance critical code, is it.
> 
This code just to release peripherals from reset, not performance
critical codes. However, our defconfigs based on flash type booting, so
this is why i din't use the DT, since we have flash type determined
from defconfig. Since DT is ultimate goal, i can change to DT
implementation.