Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Jul 2015 11:06:52 +0800 | From | Josh Wu <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function |
| |
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.
Best Regards, Josh Wu
> > Maxime >
| |