Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | "Subhasish Ghosh" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] da850: pruss SUART board specific additions. | Date | Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:43:32 +0530 |
| |
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Michael Williamson" <michael.williamson@criticallink.com> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 8:56 PM To: "Subhasish Ghosh" <subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> Cc: <davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com>; <sachi@mistralsolutions.com>; "Russell King" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>; "Kevin Hilman" <khilman@deeprootsystems.com>; "open list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>; <m-watkins@ti.com>; <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] da850: pruss SUART board specific additions.
> Hi Subhasish, > > On 2/11/2011 9:51 AM, Subhasish Ghosh wrote: > >> This patch adds the pruss SUART pin mux and registers the device >> with the pruss mfd driver. >> >> Signed-off-by: Subhasish Ghosh <subhasish@mistralsolutions.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-da850-evm.c | 36 >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-da850-evm.c >> b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-da850-evm.c >> index f9c38f8..3858516 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-da850-evm.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-davinci/board-da850-evm.c >> @@ -1060,6 +1060,25 @@ const short da850_evm_pruss_can_pins[] = { >> -1 >> }; >> >> +const short da850_evm_pruss_suart_pins[] = { >> + DA850_AHCLKX, DA850_ACLKX, DA850_AFSX, >> + DA850_AHCLKR, DA850_ACLKR, DA850_AFSR, >> + DA850_AXR_13, DA850_AXR_9, DA850_AXR_7, >> + DA850_AXR_14, DA850_AXR_10, DA850_AXR_8, >> + -1 >> +}; >> + > > > Shouldn't this pins select PRU[0,1]_XXX type functions and not McASP > functions? > E.G.: PRU0_R31[17] instead of AHCLKX, PRU0_R31[18] instead of AHCLKR, etc. >
SG - The Soft-UART implementation uses the McASP as shift registers to push out the data sequentially. Hence, we configure the McASP PINS and not the PRU PINS.
>> +static int __init da850_evm_setup_pruss_suart(void) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + >> + ret = davinci_cfg_reg_list(da850_evm_pruss_suart_pins); >> + if (ret) >> + pr_warning("%s: da850_evm_pruss_suart_pins " >> + "mux setup failed: %d\n", __func__, ret); >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> static int __init da850_evm_setup_pruss_can(void) >> { >> int ret, val = 0; >> @@ -1085,6 +1104,17 @@ static int __init da850_evm_setup_pruss_can(void) >> return ret; >> } >> >> +static struct da850_evm_pruss_suart_data suart_data = { >> + .version = 1, >> + .resource = { >> + .name = "da8xx_mcasp0_iomem", >> + .start = DAVINCI_DA8XX_MCASP0_REG_BASE, >> + .end = DAVINCI_DA8XX_MCASP0_REG_BASE + >> + (SZ_1K * 12) - 1, >> + .flags = IORESOURCE_MEM, >> + }, >> +}; >> + >> static struct da8xx_pruss_can_data can_data = { >> .version = 1, >> }; >> @@ -1094,6 +1124,12 @@ static struct da8xx_pruss_devices pruss_devices[] >> = { >> .dev_name = "da8xx_pruss_can", >> .pdata = &can_data, >> .pdata_size = sizeof(can_data), >> + .setup = da850_evm_setup_pruss_suart, > > > Should this be da850_evm_setup_pruss_can instead?
SG - This just the way the patch is displayed. In the code the order is correct.
> >> + }, >> + { >> + .dev_name = "da8xx_pruss_uart", >> + .pdata = &suart_data, >> + .pdata_size = sizeof(suart_data), >> .setup = da850_evm_setup_pruss_can, > > > Should this be da850_evm_setup_pruss_suart instead? SG - Ditto > >> }, >> { > > > -Mike >
| |