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 Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:30:35PM +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> 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
>
I'm willing to do like that.
But i'm new to this, can you help point our where the code i can reference
in Rob suggested way?

Regards
Dong Aisheng



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-14 09:21    [W:0.079 / U:0.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site