[U-Boot] [PATCH 1/6] arm: am57xx: cl-som-am57x: fix XHCI registers base address

[Lokesh Vutla]

On Monday 13 February 2017 05:42 PM, Uri Mashiach wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/13/2017 01:46 PM, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sunday 12 February 2017 09:17 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 10:55:27AM +0200, Uri Mashiach wrote:
>>>> Hi Tom,
>>>>
>>>> On 02/09/2017 10:29 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 09:00:26AM +0200, Uri Mashiach wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The following XHCI registers base address are set to OMAP5 values:
>>>>>> OMAP_XHCI_BASE, OMAP_OCP1_SCP_BASE, OMAP_OTG_WRAPPER_BASE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Captured crash for "usb start" command:
>>>>>> ----------------------------------cut----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> => usb start
>>>>>> starting USB...
>>>>>> USB0:   data abort
>>>>>> pc : [<fff63d22>]          lr : [<fff63b63>]
>>>>>> reloc pc : [<8081cd22>]    lr : [<8081cb63>]
>>>>>> sp : fdf42d08  ip : fff9e040     fp : fdf42d50
>>>>>> r10: fff8a998  r9 : fdf42ef0     r8 : 00000000
>>>>>> r7 : fdf42d28  r6 : fdf42d2c     r5 : fffa5c00  r4 : 00000000
>>>>>> r3 : 4a020000  r2 : 00000000     r1 : fdf42e78  r0 : fffa5c00
>>>>>> Flags: nzCv  IRQs off  FIQs off  Mode SVC_32
>>>>>> Resetting CPU ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> resetting ...
>>>>>> ----------------------------------cut----------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fix by adding the CL-SOM-AM57x target to the XHCI registers base
>>>>>> address
>>>>>> ifdef'ery.
>>>>>> A better fix should be based on a SOC family defines (currently
>>>>>> missing).
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please go add the Kconfig symbols that would be the better
>>>>> solution please?  Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> The SOC family symbol CONFIG_AM57XX was removed by the commit
>>>> 3891a54: "ARM: DRA7x/AM57xx: Get rid of CONFIG_AM57XX".
>>>> Maybe the symbol should be reintroduced just for the XHCI registers
>>>> section?
>>>
>>> Yes, sounds like we do have a case where DRA7xx is not the same as
>>> AM57xx then?
>>>
>>
>> No that's not right. It is just DRA74x_EVM and AM57XX evm is using
>> different instances of XHCI. Ideally this base address should be coming
>> from DT. I don't think it is a good idea to introduce CONFIG_AM57XX.
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Lokesh
>>
> It seems that the address of register is SOC dependent.
> In the current method all the target boards that use the relevant SOC
> should be included in the ifdef'ery - redundant maintenance.

Please have a look at the TRMs. DRA7xx[1], AM57xx[2]. Both has the above
two instances of XHCI. There is no difference.

[1] http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/sprui30b/sprui30b.pdf
[2] http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruhz6h/spruhz6h.pdf

Thanks and regards,
Lokesh

>