linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: bcm2835: add device tree for Raspberry Pi model B+

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54511876.1040301@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:40:22 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Matthias Klein <matthias.klein@...ux.com>,
	linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: bcm2835: add device tree for Raspberry Pi model
 B+

On 10/29/2014 03:07 AM, Matthias Klein wrote:
>
> Am 29.10.2014 um 02:33 schrieb Stephen Warren:
>> On 10/27/2014 06:52 PM, Matthias Klein wrote:
>>> The model B and B+ differ in the GPIO lines for ACT and PWR led.
>>> The PWR led on the B+ model is active low.
>> This new file is almost identical to bcm2835-rpi.dts. Perhaps we can use
>> some include files to share the common portions so they aren't
>> duplicated. Roughly:
>>
>> * Move all the common content from bcm2835-rpi.dts into bcm2835-rpi.dtsi.
>>
>> * Update bcm2835-rpi.dts to include bcm2835-rpi.dtsi to get all the
>> common parts, and add the few lines of differences.
>>
>> * Update this patch similarly.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
> Yes, I will work on such a patchset.
>
>>
>> A couple changes to this patch and the existing bcm2835-rpi.dts might
>> reduce the differences even further, leading to more common code in
>> bcm2835-rpi.dtsi:
>>
>> - Add the PWR LED to bcm2835-rpi-b.dts, if appropriate.
>> - Add the I2S pinmux settings for B+ too.
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2835-rpi-b-plus.dts
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm2835-rpi-b-plus.dts
>> ...
>>> +&mmc {
>> That label doesn't exist; it should be &sdhci. Consequently:
>
> Sorry, I based my patch on the wrong tree. I used
> https://github.com/pietrushnic/rpi-dt-linux/tree/rpi-3.17.y which
> contains non upstream commits.
>
> Which tree should I use in general for work on the BCM2835? Is
> linux-next the right tree?

linux-next would usually work.

The most recent Linus kernel would also often be a good base, or perhaps 
any recent branch (of which there are none at present) in:

https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/swarren/linux-rpi.git/
(
which will hopefully soon move to:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/rpi/linux-rpi.git/
)

Which you pick depends on things like how many other patches touch the 
same files, and which branches/repos they were applied in, and what 
conflicts/dependencies exist.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/