lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 3/5] ARM: imx28evk: add mmc dt support
    On 12:45 Tue 13 Mar     , Rob Herring wrote:
    > On 03/13/2012 11:52 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
    > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:39:30AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
    > >> On 03/13/2012 03:47 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
    > >>> From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
    > >>>
    > >>> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng@linaro.org>
    > >>> ---
    > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/imx28-evk.dts | 14 ++++++++++++++
    > >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/imx28.dtsi | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > >>> arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c | 2 ++
    > >>> 3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
    > >>
    > >> snip
    > >>
    > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c
    > >>> index 78d1129..429b88e 100644
    > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c
    > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c
    > >>> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ static const struct of_dev_auxdata imx28_auxdata_lookup[] __initconst = {
    > >>> OF_DEV_AUXDATA("arm,pl011", MX28_DUART_BASE_ADDR, "duart", NULL),
    > >>> OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-fec", MX28_ENET_MAC0_BASE_ADDR, "imx28-fec.0", NULL),
    > >>> OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-fec", MX28_ENET_MAC1_BASE_ADDR, "imx28-fec.1", NULL),
    > >>> + OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-mmc", MX28_SSP0_BASE_ADDR, "mxs-mmc.0", NULL),
    > >>> + OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-mmc", MX28_SSP1_BASE_ADDR, "mxs-mmc.1", NULL),
    > >>
    > >> Why is this needed?
    > >
    > > These are needed for the drivers which have still the mxs-mmc.* names
    > > to find their clocks. Alternatively we could also add the appropriate
    > > clocks to the clock file. Don't know if that's better though.
    >
    > Ah, yes I should have known that... If clk lookup is all that's needed,
    > I'd suggest adding the necessary clk lookups either here or in the clock
    > code. Not much difference, but at least it removes the use of
    > *_BASE_ADDR defines.
    Agreed we do this on AT91

    Best Regards,
    J.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-14 08:53    [W:0.026 / U:30.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site