[U-Boot] [PATCH 6/8] arm: ls1021atwr: Convert to use driver model TSEC driver

[Bin Meng]

Hi Vladimir,

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 5:39 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 at 23:46, Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at ni.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 12:53 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> > >
> > > Now that we have added driver model support to the TSEC driver,
> > > convert ls1021atwr board to use it.
> > >
> > > This depends on previous DM series for ls1021atwr:
> > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/561855/
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> >
> > Generally looks good, but a few nits below...
> >
> > Acked-by: Joe Hershberger <joe.hershberger at ni.com>
> >
> > > [Vladimir] Made the following changes:
> > > - Added 'status = "disabled";' for all Ethernet ports in ls1021a.dtsi
> > > - Fixed the confusion between the SGMII/TBI PCS for enet0 and enet1 -
> > >   a mistake ported over from Linux. Each SGMII PCS lies on the private
> > >   MDIO bus of the interface (and the RGMII enet2 has no SGMII PCS).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c        |  2 +-
> > >  arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c        | 10 ++++++++
> > >  arch/arm/dts/ls1021a-twr.dtsi           | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  arch/arm/dts/ls1021a.dtsi               | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++--
> > >  board/freescale/ls1021atwr/ls1021atwr.c |  2 +-
> > >  configs/ls1021atwr_nor_defconfig        |  1 +
> > >  configs/ls1021atwr_nor_lpuart_defconfig |  1 +
> > >  include/configs/ls1021atwr.h            |  4 ++++
> > >  8 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c
> > > index ecf9e869855e..9ccfe1042ce5 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/cpu.c
> > > @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ int cpu_mmc_init(bd_t *bis)
> > >
> > >  int cpu_eth_init(bd_t *bis)
> > >  {
> > > -#ifdef CONFIG_TSEC_ENET
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_TSEC_ENET) && !defined(CONFIG_DM_ETH)
> > >         tsec_standard_init(bis);
> > >  #endif
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c
> > > index 8bf9c42b2260..90cf7958f257 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/ls102xa/fdt.c
> > > @@ -16,12 +16,17 @@
> > >  #include <tsec.h>
> > >  #include <asm/arch/immap_ls102xa.h>
> > >  #include <fsl_sec.h>
> > > +#include <dm.h>
> > >
> > >  DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
> > >
> > >  void ft_fixup_enet_phy_connect_type(void *fdt)
> > >  {
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_DM_ETH
> >
> > Please use positive logic where convenient. I.e. #ifdef CONFIG_DM_ETH
> > and swap cases.
> >
>
> To be honest I don't know why keep compatibility with non-DM ETH at
> all for the TWR board. On the LS1021A-TSN I'm not doing that.
> Bin, is there any particular reason? If not, I'll just completely
> remove your #ifdef's for v2.

I remember at that time there were some PowerPC 83xx/85xx boards that
were not converted to DM but still used TSEC driver. If this is not a
concern now, I am all for it to remove the non-DM TSEC support.

Regards,
Bin