lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCHv9 03/18] TEMP: OMAP3xxx: hwmod data: add PRM hwmod
From
Date
On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 16:51 +0200, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> On 10/13/2011 6:51 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Oct 2011, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 10/11/2011 1:26 AM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In fact the device name does not have to match the hwmod name. So we
> >>>>> can just create an "omap2_prm" omap_device for OMAP2, "omap3_prm"
> >>>>> omap_device for OMAP3... That will allow the relevant PRM driver to
> >>>>> be bound to the proper device.
> >>>>
> >>>> Incidentally, given that we would be using the hwmod name and the version
> >>>> number to determine the appropriate omap_device name, what IP version
> >>>> numbers should we assign to these PRM IP blocks for different SoCs?
> >>>
> >>> It can just be 1, 2 and 3... The idea is just to differentiate the IP for each
> >>> OMAP.
> >>
> >> So those are basically arbitrary? Something is not clear here.
> >>
> >> In the current hwmod design, IP blocks with different interfaces were
> >> intended to be uniquely identified by the hwmod name alone. That is why
> >> omap_hwmod_lookup() only takes a 'name' parameter.
> >>
> >> If I understand what you want to do, you wish to change this to uniquely
> >> identify them by a (name, interface version number) tuple.
> >>
> >> I don't have a problem with this in theory, but it implies some changes to
> >> the existing model. Specifically:
> >>
> >> - we'll need to add an interface version number to the struct omap_hwmod
> >>
> >> - we'll need to modify omap_hwmod_lookup() to take an interface version
> >> number
> >>
> >> - the "ti,hwmod" DT binding that you proposed earlier will need to include
> >> an interface version number
> >
> > Hmm, reflecting on this further, is your intention to bind drivers to
> > hwmods by the struct omap_hwmod_class instead?
>
> Well, somehow, the class was added for that purpose, to allow one timer
> driver to bind to 2 different hwmods. But in that case the device name
> was the same.
>
> > If we define that "rev" field as the interface version number, that should
> > probably work.
> >
> > So then in C struct format, in a platform_device system, the mapping table
> > would basically become
> >
> > struct omap_hwmod_driver_map {
> > const char *class_name;
> > const u32 class_rev;
> > const char *platform_device_name;
> > }
>
> This is needed if and only if you want to have a different driver for
> the same IP.
>
> In the case of the timer, we do have only one device name and one driver:
> class=timer, rev=1, device=omap_timer
> class=timer, rev=2, device=omap_timer
>
> Regards,
> Benoit

Currently the delta between the different versions of the driver are so
minimal that it is easy to cope both omap3 and omap4 PRM with the same
driver; however it might be beneficial in the future to split it up. The
detection logic I made into devices.c file can easily be changed to suit
whatever need. It does not really matter whether there is a different
name for the hwmod or not, it is probably easier implementation wise if
the hwmod name is same, but only some field within e.g. class changes.

-Tero


Texas Instruments Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki, Finland. Business ID: 0115040-6. Domicile: Helsinki




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-20 17:27    [W:0.072 / U:1.292 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site