[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/1] am33xx: Update serial platdata to update reg_offset to 0

[Adam Ford]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 5:53 AM, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
> On 2.3.2016 12:09, Adam Ford wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:55 PM, Mugunthan V N <mugunthanvnm at ti.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 03:03 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Monday 29 February 2016 02:55 PM, Mugunthan V N wrote:
>>>>>> With commit: d9a3bec682f9 "dm: ns16550: Add support for reg-offset property"
>>>>>> reg_offset is added to the struct ns16550_platdata to be
>>>>>> dt compatible with Linux kernel driver, TI AM335x evms are broken
>>>>>> as the serial platdata updates wrong offsets. Correcting it with
>>>>>> initializing reg_offset to zero.
>>>> Acked-by: Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla at ti.com>
>>>>
>>>> This will be true for OMAP5+ platforms as well. I guess that array also
>>>> needs to be updated?
>>>
>>> Apart from AM335x, no other platform is converted to DM for non-dt boot,
>>> so there is no issues with other TI platforms.
>>
>> Due to the way the structure was changed, a bunch of omap3 boards
>> broke because they hard-coded the values expecting them in a certain
>> order in the structure.  The patch has since been reverted.
>
> the patch was reverting just because we are close to release not because
> the patch is wrong. It will be added again in the merge window.
> That's why I am asking you to define your structure right with proper
> assignment or you will deal with this problem pretty soon again.
> The best all these patches should come to the tree before my patch.

I wasn't trying to imply there was anything wrong with the patch.  On
contrary, I was criticizing the hard-coded nature of how the omap3
boards (and some others) defined it by expecting the data in a certain
order.  I have submitted a patch to address (what I think are) all but
the am335x boards.  Since there was already a patch submitted for
AM35x, so I didn't want to modify the AM335x again.

I only mentioned the patch was being reverted because someone was
concerned about the OMAP5+ and I was trying to indicate that there is
some time to look into it.  Sorry if I didn't come across correctly.

adam

> Thanks,
> Michal
>