| Message ID | 1338396350-16492-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 1e7e716e80f7a8f599390dd5aa4ae7dce465a1da |
| Headers | show |
On 05/30/12 19:45, Stephen Warren wrote: > From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > > Fix the .dts file USB unit addresses not to duplicate each-other. > > Fix the board name string to indicate the vendor is Compulab not NVIDIA. > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> Thanks! > --- > board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts | 2 +- > include/configs/trimslice.h | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts b/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts > index c707eb8..db79e77 100644 > --- a/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts > +++ b/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ > status = "disabled"; > }; > > - usb@c5004000 { > + usb@c5000000 { > status = "disabled"; > }; > > diff --git a/include/configs/trimslice.h b/include/configs/trimslice.h > index dec9125..39c9866 100644 > --- a/include/configs/trimslice.h > +++ b/include/configs/trimslice.h > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ > > /* High-level configuration options */ > #define V_PROMPT "Tegra2 (TrimSlice) # " > -#define CONFIG_TEGRA2_BOARD_STRING "NVIDIA Trimslice" > +#define CONFIG_TEGRA2_BOARD_STRING "Compulab Trimslice" > > /* Board-specific serial config */ > #define CONFIG_SERIAL_MULTI
Dear Igor Grinberg, > On 05/30/12 19:45, Stephen Warren wrote: > > From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > > > > Fix the .dts file USB unit addresses not to duplicate each-other. > > > > Fix the board name string to indicate the vendor is Compulab not NVIDIA. > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > > Acked-by: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> Do we have one copy of the dts files here and one in Linux kernel tree? Are they the same? M > Thanks! > > > --- > > > > board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts | 2 +- > > include/configs/trimslice.h | 2 +- > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts > > b/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts index c707eb8..db79e77 100644 > > --- a/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts > > +++ b/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts > > @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ > > > > status = "disabled"; > > > > }; > > > > - usb@c5004000 { > > + usb@c5000000 { > > > > status = "disabled"; > > > > }; > > > > diff --git a/include/configs/trimslice.h b/include/configs/trimslice.h > > index dec9125..39c9866 100644 > > --- a/include/configs/trimslice.h > > +++ b/include/configs/trimslice.h > > @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ > > > > /* High-level configuration options */ > > #define V_PROMPT "Tegra2 (TrimSlice) # " > > > > -#define CONFIG_TEGRA2_BOARD_STRING "NVIDIA Trimslice" > > +#define CONFIG_TEGRA2_BOARD_STRING "Compulab Trimslice" > > > > /* Board-specific serial config */ > > #define CONFIG_SERIAL_MULTI Best regards, Marek Vasut
On 05/31/2012 04:13 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Igor Grinberg, > >> On 05/30/12 19:45, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>> >>> Fix the .dts file USB unit addresses not to duplicate each-other. >>> >>> Fix the board name string to indicate the vendor is Compulab not NVIDIA. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >> >> Acked-by: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> > > Do we have one copy of the dts files here and one in Linux kernel tree? Are they > the same? Both U-Boot and the kernel have their own copies of the .dts files. In general, the U-Boot copy would be identical to what's in the kernel, or a pure subset since mostly the kernel's driver support is more advanced, so we've added more nodes to the DT. That said, there are unfortunately some bizarre quirks in the way the U-Boot parses the device tree, such as requiring the /aliases node in order to enumerate at least some devices, the use of the Tegra clock binding that hasn't been incorporated into the kernel yet and is used for both clock and module reset functionality even though it's really only intended for clock functionality, and various other small properties that are U-Boot specific (although I forget if we managed to eliminate these all or not). These all end up causing differences between the two device tree files:-(
On 05/31/12 19:50, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 05/31/2012 04:13 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >> Dear Igor Grinberg, >> >>> On 05/30/12 19:45, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>>> >>>> Fix the .dts file USB unit addresses not to duplicate each-other. >>>> >>>> Fix the board name string to indicate the vendor is Compulab not NVIDIA. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>> >>> Acked-by: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> >> >> Do we have one copy of the dts files here and one in Linux kernel tree? Are they >> the same? > > Both U-Boot and the kernel have their own copies of the .dts files. > > In general, the U-Boot copy would be identical to what's in the kernel, > or a pure subset since mostly the kernel's driver support is more > advanced, so we've added more nodes to the DT. > > That said, there are unfortunately some bizarre quirks in the way the > U-Boot parses the device tree, such as requiring the /aliases node in > order to enumerate at least some devices, the use of the Tegra clock > binding that hasn't been incorporated into the kernel yet and is used > for both clock and module reset functionality even though it's really > only intended for clock functionality, and various other small > properties that are U-Boot specific (although I forget if we managed to > eliminate these all or not). These all end up causing differences > between the two device tree files:-( Thanks for the information. I don't see any problem with having differences between the .dts files in kernel and U-Boot, because the way I see it: The .dts file we have in kernel should provide a way for a DT aware kernel to boot on even non-DT aware U-Boot (as the DT blob can be appended to the kernel binary). The .dts file in U-Boot can have a basic settings and the binary DT blob can be updated by U-Boot at run time, just before loading kernel. Also, IIRC, the intension was to remove the kernel .dts files after "all bootloaders" know to boot the DT kernel...
On 06/01/2012 12:38 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: > On 05/31/12 19:50, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 05/31/2012 04:13 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>> Dear Igor Grinberg, >>> >>>> On 05/30/12 19:45, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>>>> >>>>> Fix the .dts file USB unit addresses not to duplicate each-other. >>>>> >>>>> Fix the board name string to indicate the vendor is Compulab not NVIDIA. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> >>> >>> Do we have one copy of the dts files here and one in Linux kernel tree? Are they >>> the same? >> >> Both U-Boot and the kernel have their own copies of the .dts files. >> >> In general, the U-Boot copy would be identical to what's in the kernel, >> or a pure subset since mostly the kernel's driver support is more >> advanced, so we've added more nodes to the DT. >> >> That said, there are unfortunately some bizarre quirks in the way the >> U-Boot parses the device tree, such as requiring the /aliases node in >> order to enumerate at least some devices, the use of the Tegra clock >> binding that hasn't been incorporated into the kernel yet and is used >> for both clock and module reset functionality even though it's really >> only intended for clock functionality, and various other small >> properties that are U-Boot specific (although I forget if we managed to >> eliminate these all or not). These all end up causing differences >> between the two device tree files:-( > > Thanks for the information. > > I don't see any problem with having differences between the .dts files > in kernel and U-Boot, because the way I see it: The issue isn't so much the duplicate files, but differing content. The whole point about DT is that it's a pure representation of the hardware; there should be no software-dependent design or data in it. Put another way, both U-Boot and the Linux kernel (and indeed anything else) should expect the DT to be written according to the same "bindings" design. This doesn't preclude the U-Boot DT file being a strict subset of the kernel file it it needs less information, but what is in both should match. > Also, IIRC, the intension was to remove the kernel .dts files after > "all bootloaders" know to boot the DT kernel... I don't believe it's anything to do with bootloaders. Bootloaders are already (in the main) expected to provide the DTB to the kernel as a separate entity, irrespective of whether the DTB is built by the kernel boot process or from some other repository. (Although there is CONFIG_APPENDED_DTB to support cases where this isn't possible, it's much preferred not to use this). Moving the .dts files out of the kernel is more purely about finding a place to put them I think.
Dear Stephen Warren, > On 06/01/2012 12:38 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: > > On 05/31/12 19:50, Stephen Warren wrote: > >> On 05/31/2012 04:13 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: > >>> Dear Igor Grinberg, > >>> > >>>> On 05/30/12 19:45, Stephen Warren wrote: > >>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> Fix the .dts file USB unit addresses not to duplicate each-other. > >>>>> > >>>>> Fix the board name string to indicate the vendor is Compulab not > >>>>> NVIDIA. > >>>>> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> > >>> > >>> Do we have one copy of the dts files here and one in Linux kernel tree? > >>> Are they the same? > >> > >> Both U-Boot and the kernel have their own copies of the .dts files. > >> > >> In general, the U-Boot copy would be identical to what's in the kernel, > >> or a pure subset since mostly the kernel's driver support is more > >> advanced, so we've added more nodes to the DT. > >> > >> That said, there are unfortunately some bizarre quirks in the way the > >> U-Boot parses the device tree, such as requiring the /aliases node in > >> order to enumerate at least some devices, the use of the Tegra clock > >> binding that hasn't been incorporated into the kernel yet and is used > >> for both clock and module reset functionality even though it's really > >> only intended for clock functionality, and various other small > >> properties that are U-Boot specific (although I forget if we managed to > >> eliminate these all or not). These all end up causing differences > >> between the two device tree files:-( > > > > Thanks for the information. > > > > I don't see any problem with having differences between the .dts files > > > in kernel and U-Boot, because the way I see it: > The issue isn't so much the duplicate files, but differing content. > > The whole point about DT is that it's a pure representation of the > hardware; there should be no software-dependent design or data in it. > Put another way, both U-Boot and the Linux kernel (and indeed anything > else) should expect the DT to be written according to the same > "bindings" design. This doesn't preclude the U-Boot DT file being a > strict subset of the kernel file it it needs less information, but what > is in both should match. Thanks for clearing it up! > > > Also, IIRC, the intension was to remove the kernel .dts files after > > "all bootloaders" know to boot the DT kernel... > > I don't believe it's anything to do with bootloaders. Bootloaders are > already (in the main) expected to provide the DTB to the kernel as a > separate entity, irrespective of whether the DTB is built by the kernel > boot process or from some other repository. (Although there is > CONFIG_APPENDED_DTB to support cases where this isn't possible, it's > much preferred not to use this). Moving the .dts files out of the kernel > is more purely about finding a place to put them I think. > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot Best regards, Marek Vasut
On 06/01/12 18:45, Marek Vasut wrote: > Dear Stephen Warren, > >> On 06/01/2012 12:38 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: >>> On 05/31/12 19:50, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>> On 05/31/2012 04:13 AM, Marek Vasut wrote: >>>>> Dear Igor Grinberg, >>>>> >>>>>> On 05/30/12 19:45, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>>> From: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fix the .dts file USB unit addresses not to duplicate each-other. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Fix the board name string to indicate the vendor is Compulab not >>>>>>> NVIDIA. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Igor Grinberg <grinberg@compulab.co.il> >>>>> >>>>> Do we have one copy of the dts files here and one in Linux kernel tree? >>>>> Are they the same? >>>> >>>> Both U-Boot and the kernel have their own copies of the .dts files. >>>> >>>> In general, the U-Boot copy would be identical to what's in the kernel, >>>> or a pure subset since mostly the kernel's driver support is more >>>> advanced, so we've added more nodes to the DT. >>>> >>>> That said, there are unfortunately some bizarre quirks in the way the >>>> U-Boot parses the device tree, such as requiring the /aliases node in >>>> order to enumerate at least some devices, the use of the Tegra clock >>>> binding that hasn't been incorporated into the kernel yet and is used >>>> for both clock and module reset functionality even though it's really >>>> only intended for clock functionality, and various other small >>>> properties that are U-Boot specific (although I forget if we managed to >>>> eliminate these all or not). These all end up causing differences >>>> between the two device tree files:-( >>> >>> Thanks for the information. >>> >>> I don't see any problem with having differences between the .dts files >> >>> in kernel and U-Boot, because the way I see it: >> The issue isn't so much the duplicate files, but differing content. >> >> The whole point about DT is that it's a pure representation of the >> hardware; there should be no software-dependent design or data in it. Right, what I was saying is not that the design or the bindings can differ, but that the DT blob can be adjusted with data in run time to better represent the "run time detected" hardware (e.g. extension boards and devices on them, revisions, serial number, etc.) >> Put another way, both U-Boot and the Linux kernel (and indeed anything >> else) should expect the DT to be written according to the same >> "bindings" design. This doesn't preclude the U-Boot DT file being a >> strict subset of the kernel file it it needs less information, but what >> is in both should match. That is understood completely and of course agreed!
diff --git a/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts b/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts index c707eb8..db79e77 100644 --- a/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts +++ b/board/compulab/dts/tegra2-trimslice.dts @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ status = "disabled"; }; - usb@c5004000 { + usb@c5000000 { status = "disabled"; }; diff --git a/include/configs/trimslice.h b/include/configs/trimslice.h index dec9125..39c9866 100644 --- a/include/configs/trimslice.h +++ b/include/configs/trimslice.h @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ /* High-level configuration options */ #define V_PROMPT "Tegra2 (TrimSlice) # " -#define CONFIG_TEGRA2_BOARD_STRING "NVIDIA Trimslice" +#define CONFIG_TEGRA2_BOARD_STRING "Compulab Trimslice" /* Board-specific serial config */ #define CONFIG_SERIAL_MULTI