[U-Boot] [PATCH v7 1/7] mips: add base support for QCA/Atheros ath79 SOCs
Wills Wang
wills.wang at live.com
Sat Jan 23 06:25:52 CET 2016
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 11:06 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 02:31:31 AM, Wills Wang wrote:
>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 10:44 PM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 22, 2016 at 10:02:18 AM, Wills Wang wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, January 17, 2016 03:19 AM, Marek Vasut wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 07:13:47 PM, Wills Wang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Commit message is missing.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Wills Wang <wills.wang at live.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes in v7:
>>>>>> - Use setbits_32
>>>>>> - Fix include path for SoC specific headers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Changes in v6:
>>>>>> - Move ar933x as separate patch
>>>>>> - Add get_bootstrap in reset.c
>>>>>> - Use map_physmem instead of KSEG1ADDR
>>>>>> - Add arch_cpu_init for detect SOC type for early
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/mach-ath79/Kconfig
>>>>>> b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/Kconfig new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..df84876
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/Kconfig
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
>>>>>> +menu "QCA/Athroes 7xxx/9xxx platforms"
>>>>>> + depends on ARCH_ATH79
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +config SYS_VENDOR
>>>>>> + default "ath79"
>>>>> Vendor should be atheros I believe.
>>>> Now atheros was merged into qualcomm, ap121 and ap143, one belongs
>>>> to atheros and the other to qualcomm.
>>> So write qualcomm/atheros ? What's the problem ?
>> SYS_VENDOR is used to specify the folder
> directory, this is not windows.
>
>> name under board, i will change it into atheros-qualcomm or qca.
> qca then.
>
>>>>>> +config SYS_SOC
>>>>>> + default "ath79"
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +endmenu
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/mach-ath79/Makefile
>>>>>> b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/Makefile new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..6203cf0
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/Makefile
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
>>>>>> +#
>>>>>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>>>>> +#
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +obj-y += reset.o
>>>>>> +obj-y += cpu.o
>>>>>> +obj-y += dram.o
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/mach-ath79/cpu.c b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/cpu.c
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..d8910a0
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/cpu.c
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2015-2016 Wills Wang <wills.wang at live.com>
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#include <common.h>
>>>>>> +#include <asm/io.h>
>>>>>> +#include <asm/addrspace.h>
>>>>>> +#include <asm/types.h>
>>>>>> +#include <mach/ath79.h>
>>>>>> +#include <mach/ar71xx_regs.h>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +struct ath79_soc_desc {
>>>>>> + enum ath79_soc_type soc;
>>>>>> + const char *chip;
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +static struct ath79_soc_desc desc[] = {
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR7130, "7130"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR7141, "7141"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR7161, "7161"},
>>>>> Just curious, were 7161 chips ever tested ?
>>>> These id rules are verified by kernel and openwrt project,
>>>> Of course, we can also remove support for these chips that faded out the
>>>> market.
>>> That's not answering my question, I am asking if the code was tested on
>>> those chips at all or not.
>> Not test.
> OK, which SoCs were tested ?
I have ar9331 and qca9531 board and tested on it.
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR7240, "7240"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR7242, "7242"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR9130, "9130"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR9132, "9132"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR9330, "9330"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR9331, "9331"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR9341, "9341"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR9342, "9342"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_AR9344, "9344"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_QCA9533, "9533"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_QCA9556, "9556"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_QCA9558, "9558"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_TP9343, "9343"},
>>>>>> + {ATH79_SOC_QCA9561, "9561"},
>>>>>> +};
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +int arch_cpu_init(void)
>>>>>> +{
>>>>>> + void __iomem *base;
>>>>>> + enum ath79_soc_type soc = ATH79_SOC_UNKNOWN;
>>>>>> + u32 id, major, minor;
>>>>>> + u32 rev = 0;
>>>>>> + u32 ver = 1;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + base = map_physmem(AR71XX_RESET_BASE, AR71XX_RESET_SIZE,
>>>>>> + MAP_NOCACHE);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + id = readl(base + AR71XX_RESET_REG_REV_ID);
>>>>>> + major = id & REV_ID_MAJOR_MASK;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + switch (major) {
>>>>>> + case REV_ID_MAJOR_AR71XX:
>>>>>> + minor = id & AR71XX_REV_ID_MINOR_MASK;
>>>>>> + rev = id >> AR71XX_REV_ID_REVISION_SHIFT;
>>>>>> + rev &= AR71XX_REV_ID_REVISION_MASK;
>>>>>> + switch (minor) {
>>>>>> + case AR71XX_REV_ID_MINOR_AR7130:
>>>>>> + soc = ATH79_SOC_AR7130;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + case AR71XX_REV_ID_MINOR_AR7141:
>>>>>> + soc = ATH79_SOC_AR7141;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + case AR71XX_REV_ID_MINOR_AR7161:
>>>>>> + soc = ATH79_SOC_AR7161;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>> This could easily be a lookup-table instead of such big switch
>>>>> statement.
>>>> This has already been explained in v4, i have tried to use lookup-table,
>>>> but the code is not more beautiful than now, the bit filed of id is not
>>>> regular.
>>>>
>>>> The shift bits of minor and revision is different for same chips, same
>>>> chips
>>>> should ignore the minor bits, the lookup table must store these shift
>>>> information and which was ignored in common, so the table will become
>>>> more complex if this code want to be compatible with many other SOCs.
>>> I don't see a problem with storing offset and mask in the table.
>>>
>>>> If people want to add other QCA's SoC, need spend a great deal of time
>>>> to debug this code.
>>> Why? They'd just add the necessary entry into the table.
>> The bit filed of id register is not regular, they need modify this lookup
>> table sometimes.
> Major seems pretty regular to me, minor might be different.
>
>>>>>> + case REV_ID_MAJOR_AR7240:
>>>>>> + soc = ATH79_SOC_AR7240;
>>>>>> + rev = id & AR71XX_REV_ID_REVISION_MASK;
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/mips/mach-ath79/include/mach/ar71xx_regs.h
>>>>>> b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/include/mach/ar71xx_regs.h new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..5e80eaf
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/mips/mach-ath79/include/mach/ar71xx_regs.h
>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,1187 @@
>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>> + * Atheros AR71XX/AR724X/AR913X SoC register definitions
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2015-2016 Wills Wang <wills.wang at live.com>
>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2010-2011 Jaiganesh Narayanan
>>>>>> <jnarayanan at atheros.com> + * Copyright (C) 2008-2010 Gabor Juhos
>>>>>> <juhosg at openwrt.org>
>>>>>> + * Copyright (C) 2008 Imre Kaloz <kaloz at openwrt.org>
>>>>>> + *
>>>>>> + * SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
>>>>>> + */
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifndef __ASM_MACH_AR71XX_REGS_H
>>>>>> +#define __ASM_MACH_AR71XX_REGS_H
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +#ifndef __ASSEMBLY__
>>>>>> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>> +#ifndef BIT
>>>>>> +#define BIT(nr) (1 << (nr))
>>>>> Linux defines the macro as (1ul << (nr))
>>>> This header is also used by assembler, the assembler don't recognize
>>>> label 1ul.
>>> In that case, this should be fixed in bitops.h and brought up in the
>>> kernel mailing list. Otherwise, we will develop unnecessary boilerplate
>>> code soon.
>>>
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>> [...]
--
Best Regards
Wills
More information about the U-Boot
mailing list