Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:47:12 +0200 | From | Nicolas Ferre <> | Subject | Re: [GIT PULL] at91: soc for 3.18 #2 |
| |
On 26/09/2014 12:50, Arnd Bergmann : > On Monday 22 September 2014, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >> Nicolas Ferre (4): >> ARM: at91: introduce basic SAMA5D4 support >> ARM: at91: SAMA5D4 SoC detection code and low level routines > > This resulted in build failures both in at91x40_defconfig and some > randconfigs with MMU disabled. I've applied the patch below on top > to fix it.
Ok, I see: sorry for the inconvenience. What about taking the patch that I sent about removing completely the at91x40 as it is "Acked" by everybody now? The would prevent from adding these unneeded values.
> I'm not exactly happy about the soc detection code anyway after I > had to look at that. Why do you even hardcode the physical register > location rather than getting it from DT? > > Also, why do you care about which SoC version you have for the > modern SAMA5 chips? All I see is a sama5d4_map_io() callback > that maps a lot of completely unused registers along with > the uart that you normally get from the implicit debug_ll_io_init, > and the SRAM that should probably be turned into a normal driver.
Yes, as said by Alexandre, we are aware of the flaws of AT91 SoC initialization, but last time I tried, our code was called too early. Now with the work from Maxime with the timer (in 3.18) it might be possible to reorder all this. But please, I would really like to remove all !DT *and* !CCF material before starting this work, otherwise we will again have a double path for sam9's and I'd like to avoid this.
Your thoughts?
Bye,
> 8<------- >>From 45aeea29c360551519edd8e041b36d8a4d5f6a23 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:27:00 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: at91: fix nommu build regression > > The newly introduced support for SAMA5D4 added access to the > 'AT91_ALT_BASE_SYS' register area, but failed to define the > symbols in the case when CONFIG_MMU is disabled. > > We really should not hardwire addresses like this any more, > but as a small fixup, this patch just adds the missing > definitions for the nommu case, which gets at91x40_defconfig > and any configuration of sam9 and sama5 with MMU disabled > back to work. > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> > Fixes: 726d32bf79ef4 ("ARM: at91: SAMA5D4 SoC detection code and low ...") > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/hardware.h b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/hardware.h > index d84776f6b8ac..c13797352688 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/hardware.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/include/mach/hardware.h > @@ -51,11 +51,12 @@ > */ > #define AT91_BASE_SYS 0xffffc000 > > +#endif > + > /* > * On sama5d4 there is no system controller, we map some needed peripherals > */ > #define AT91_ALT_BASE_SYS 0xfc069000 > -#endif > > /* > * On all at91 have the Advanced Interrupt Controller starts at address > @@ -90,6 +91,9 @@ > */ > #define AT91_IO_PHYS_BASE AT91_BASE_SYS > #define AT91_IO_VIRT_BASE IOMEM(AT91_IO_PHYS_BASE) > + > +#define AT91_ALT_IO_PHYS_BASE AT91_ALT_BASE_SYS > +#define AT91_ALT_IO_VIRT_BASE IOMEM(AT91_ALT_BASE_SYS) > #endif > > #define AT91_IO_SIZE (0xFFFFFFFF - AT91_IO_PHYS_BASE + 1) > >
-- Nicolas Ferre
| |