linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: dts: da850: Add an aemif node

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

Message-ID: <57AAE728.8000209@ti.com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 2016 14:04:48 +0530
From:	Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@...com>
To:	Karl Beldan <kbeldan@...libre.com>
CC:	<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Karl Beldan <karl.beldan+oss@...il.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] ARM: dts: da850: Add an aemif node

On Wednesday 10 August 2016 02:04 PM, Karl Beldan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:59:26PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Wednesday 10 August 2016 01:56 PM, Karl Beldan wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:42:01PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday 10 August 2016 01:37 PM, Karl Beldan wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 01:32:03PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday 10 August 2016 01:18 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday 09 August 2016 10:45 PM, Karl Beldan wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently the davinci da8xx boards use the mach-davinci aemif code.
>>>>>>>> Instantiating an aemif node into the DT allows to use the ti-aemif
>>>>>>>> memory driver and is another step to better DT support.
>>>>>>>> Also it will allow to properly pass the emif timings via DT.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Karl Beldan <kbeldan@...libre.com>
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>>>>>>> index bc10e7e..f62928c 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/da850.dtsi
>>>>>>>> @@ -411,6 +411,16 @@
>>>>>>>>  			dma-names = "tx", "rx";
>>>>>>>>  		};
>>>>>>>>  	};
>>>>>>>> +	aemif: aemif@...00000 {
>>>>>>>> +		compatible = "ti,da850-aemif";
>>>>>>>> +		#address-cells = <2>;
>>>>>>>> +		#size-cells = <1>;
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +		reg = <0x68000000 0x00008000>;
>>>>>>>> +		ranges = <0 0 0x60000000 0x08000000
>>>>>>>> +			  1 0 0x68000000 0x00008000>;
>>>>>>>> +		status = "disabled";
>>>>>>>> +	};
>>>>>>>>  	nand_cs3@...00000 {
>>>>>>>>  		compatible = "ti,davinci-nand";
>>>>>>>>  		reg = <0x62000000 0x807ff
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The nand node should be part of aemif node like it is done for keystone
>>>>>>> boards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, can you move the nand node out of da850.dtsi completely. Its
>>>>>> much better to keep da850.dtsi restricted to soc-internal devices and
>>>>>> keep the board level devices like NAND flash in <board>.dts file.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, can you move the NAND pinmux definitions too to the
>>>>>> da850-evm.dts file?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is advantage in keeping common pinmux definitions in da850.dtsi so
>>>>>> each board doe not have to repeat them. But AEMIF is an exception as its
>>>>>> usage can really be varied (NAND, NOR, SRAM, other). Plus, different
>>>>>> boards are likely to use different chip selects so coming up with some
>>>>>> pinmux definitions which will be reused widely is really unlikely.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly what I just did for the LCDK.
>>>>> If everybody is happy with it I will do the same for the evm as I put it
>>>>> in the cover letter.
>>>>
>>>> Yes please. We dont want duplication of data between da850.dtsi and
>>>> da850-lcdk.dts files.
>>>>
>>> Then I'll wait for this series to be applied and then apply my changes
>>> to the EVM while retiring the nand_cs3 together.
>>
>> No, I prefer the fixup happens first. In the same series, you can first
>> fixup existing EVM and then add LCDK support.
>>
> 
> Well in that case you'll have to do the testing since I only have an
> LCDK. I should be able to send the series within the hour.

Sure. I can test it.

Regards,
Sekhar