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

[Adam Ford]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Michal Simek <michal.simek at xilinx.com> wrote:
> On 2.3.2016 13:18, Adam Ford wrote:
>> 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.
>
> no worries. I just wanted to make it clear because reverting patch is
> causing problem for microblaze with uart16550 but now it is better then
> break others.
>

Hopefully those patches will get approved so we can get your patch
incorporated.   Mugunthan - If you want, I can add your am355x board
to my patch or if you want you can review it and take what you need.


> Thanks,
> Michal
>