[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] drivers/amba: probe via device tree

On 05/23/2011 10:09 AM, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:58 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:37:04AM +0200, Kristoffer Glembo wrote:
>>> Grant Likely wrote:
>>>> In the case we're talking about the bus really is an AMBA bus, and all
>>>> the devices on it are in some sense real amba devices. The problem is
>>>> that not all of the devices on the bus implement peripheral ID
>>>> registers or other mechanisms that good upstanding AMBA devices are
>>>> expected to have.
>>> Before we go hardware bashing of non primecell AMBA devices I would just
>>> want to point out that the primecell stuff is not part of the AMBA
>>> specification.
>> And before we go down that route, let me point out that the 'amba bus'
>> stuff in the kernel is there to support primecells, rather than all
>> devices which the AMBA specification covers.
>> The reason it's called 'amba' is because back in 2001 or so when the
>> first primecell drivers were created, there was little information
>> available as to what AMBA, AHB, or APB even covered. All I had to go
>> on were the primecell documents themselves. The higher level documents
>> were not available to me.
>> So, despite it being called 'amba', it really is just for primecells
>> and if we didn't have the exposure to userspace, I'd have renamed it to
>> 'apb' or similar instead.
> Okay, that clarifies things a lot, and lends weight to the arguement
> that it is perfectly normal and acceptable to have both amba_devices
> and platform_devices on the same bus segment. Are there any cases
> where amba primecells are being driven by platform_drivers? If so,
> should those drivers have an amba_driver registration added?

I would be surprised if there are any implemented as platform_drivers
that are not duplicates of an amba driver. The STMP uart is actually a
pl011 and it's platform driver was recently removed IIRC. So I think we
can consider platform drivers something that should be fixed in this case.

Do you still think we should have a global match table of all devices or
a generic "arm,primecell" compatible property would work. Several
drivers like the pl022 have several h/w variations they support, so we
would either need to list all those variations or have a generic name
per device.

I think having "arm,amba-deviceid" is not needed. The current code does
nothing but warn if it doesn't match the h/w value. The drivers already
have a list of id's that they support and the amba bus only matches
against the h/w id value. The only use I can see is overriding a broken
h/w value. Certainly seems like it should be optional at least.


 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-24 17:05    [W:0.086 / U:37.208 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site