Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:59:11 +0800 | From | Josh Wu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function |
| |
On 7/10/2015 2:54 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:06:52AM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: >> Hi, Maxime >> >> On 7/9/2015 8:03 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 06:15:46PM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: >>>> As since sama5d3, to reset the chip, we don't need to shutdown the ddr >>>> controller. >>>> >>>> So add a new compatible string and new restart function for sama5d3 and >>>> later chips. As we don't use sama5d3 ddr controller, so remove it as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Josh Wu <josh.wu@atmel.com> >>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c >>>> index 36dc52f..8944b63 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c >>>> @@ -123,6 +123,14 @@ static int at91sam9g45_restart(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long mode, >>>> return NOTIFY_DONE; >>>> } >>>> +static int sama5d3_restart(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long mode, >>>> + void *cmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + writel(cpu_to_le32(AT91_RSTC_KEY | AT91_RSTC_PERRST | AT91_RSTC_PROCRST), >>>> + at91_rstc_base); >>>> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> static void __init at91_reset_status(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> { >>>> u32 reg = readl(at91_rstc_base + AT91_RSTC_SR); >>>> @@ -155,13 +163,13 @@ static void __init at91_reset_status(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> static const struct of_device_id at91_ramc_of_match[] = { >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc", }, >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc", }, >>>> - { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-ddramc", }, >>>> { /* sentinel */ } >>>> }; >>>> static const struct of_device_id at91_reset_of_match[] = { >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-rstc", .data = at91sam9260_restart }, >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-rstc", .data = at91sam9g45_restart }, >>>> + { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-rstc", .data = sama5d3_restart }, >>>> { /* sentinel */ } >>>> }; >>>> @@ -181,17 +189,21 @@ static int at91_reset_of_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> return -ENODEV; >>>> } >>>> - for_each_matching_node(np, at91_ramc_of_match) { >>>> - at91_ramc_base[idx] = of_iomap(np, 0); >>>> - if (!at91_ramc_base[idx]) { >>>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Could not map ram controller address\n"); >>>> - return -ENODEV; >>>> + match = of_match_node(at91_reset_of_match, pdev->dev.of_node); >>>> + at91_restart_nb.notifier_call = match->data; >>>> + >>>> + if (match->data != sama5d3_restart) { >>> Using of_device_is_compatible seems more appropriate. >>> >>> Also, why are you changing the order of this loop and the notifier >>> registration? >> I moved this order because I use the match->data to compare whether is >> sama5d3_restart. So I need to move this function (of_match_node) up. > Ah right, my bad. > > Still, testing against the kernel pointer is not that great. > > It would be great to use something explicit instead, like > of_device_is_compatible.
I agree. I will use of_device_is_compatible() in v2. And that can avoid the order change in the loop as well. Thanks.
Best Regards, Josh Wu
> > Maxime >
| |