linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: fix PM initialization for newer SoCs

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]

Date:	Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:11:23 +0100
From:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>
Cc:	Nicolas FERRE <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Wenyou Yang <wenyou.yang@...el.com>,
	Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: at91: fix PM initialization for newer SoCs

On 23/01/2015 at 15:50:13 +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote :
> 
> > On Jan 23, 2015, at 12:07 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Newer SoCs: at91sam9x5, at91sam9n12, sama5d3 and sama5d4 embed a DDR controller
> > and have a different PMC status register layout than the at91sam9g45. Create
> > another at91_sam9x5_pm_init() function to match this compatibility.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sam9.c  | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sama5.c |  2 +-
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/generic.h        |  2 ++
> > arch/arm/mach-at91/pm.c             |  7 +++++++
> > 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sam9.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sam9.c
> > index 0fe1ced608c5..c8252ddac6f0 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sam9.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-dt-sam9.c
> > @@ -61,3 +61,23 @@ DT_MACHINE_START(at91sam9g45_dt, "Atmel AT91SAM9G45")
> > 	.init_machine	= sam9g45_dt_device_init,
> > 	.dt_compat	= at91_9g45_board_compat,
> > MACHINE_END
> > +
> > +static void __init sam9x5_dt_device_init(void)
> > +{
> > +	at91_sam9x5_pm_init();
> > +	of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static const char *at91_9x5_board_compat[] __initconst = {
> > +	"atmel,at91sam9x5",
> > +	"atmel,at91sam9n12",
> > +	NULL
> > +};
> > +
> > +DT_MACHINE_START(at91sam9x5_dt, "Atmel AT91SAM9”)
> sam9? sam9x5
> > +	/* Maintainer: Atmel */
> > +	.map_io		= at91_map_io,
> > +	.init_early	= at91_dt_initialize,
> > +	.init_machine	= sam9x5_dt_device_init,
> > +	.dt_compat	= at91_9x5_board_compat,
> > +MACHINE_END
> 
> why a second START instead of a pdata?
> 
> and create a second dt compatible
> e


The real solution to that is to match the pmc compatible in pm.c


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/