V4
I incorporated more feedback from Jamie Iles. It was
primariy cleanup with the only significant change
being a move to using raw_read/write in the uncompressor
uart code.
The other changes were minor updates so that the patch
set applies to linux-next.
This patch set is now tested against the linux-next branch
from pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git.
V3
I incorporated more feedback from Russell King.
Primarily clean up of the license header to remove
the address.
Also minor cleanup of the Kconfig and Makefile for the board
to match the MACH_XILINX entry in the machine ID database.
These changes were tested on 2.6.38-rc4 and rc5.
V2
I incorporated review comments from Russell King and Jamie Iles.
Each patch has V2 comments describing the details. The order of
each patch in the series did change.
Thanks a lot to them for the detailed review as this patch set
is much cleaner and improved (I think anyway).
Thanks for comments from Arnd and Grant also.
This was tested against 2.6.38-rc4.
----
This patch series adds very basic support for the Xilinx ARM platform.
The entire patch set must be used, I only broke it up into logical
pieces to make the review easier (I hope).
I would like to get the review feedback and make any changes, but after
that I need to change mach-xilinx to the real product name. The real
product name is expected to be released by marketing very soon.
There's always the option of keeping mach-xilinx and then only
documenting the product name in the Kconfig. I'm less in favor of that
but it could be ok.
This code has been tested against 2.6.38-rc2, r3, and against head. The
only checkpatch warnings are about volatile in the uncompress.h file
and this method I used seems normal.
Thanks,
John
arch/arm/Kconfig | 14 +
arch/arm/Makefile | 1
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/Kconfig | 14 +
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/Makefile | 9
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/Makefile.boot | 3
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/board_ep107.c | 82 ++++++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.c | 113 +++++++++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.h | 31 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/clkdev.h | 33 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/debug-macro.S | 36 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/entry-macro.S | 30 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/hardware.h | 18 +
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/io.h | 33 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/irqs.h | 29 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/memory.h | 23 +
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/system.h | 28 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/timex.h | 22 +
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/uart.h | 25 ++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/uncompress.h | 61 ++++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/vmalloc.h | 20 +
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/xilinx_soc.h | 47 +++
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/timer.c | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++++-
arch/arm/mm/Kconfig | 3
23 files changed, 962 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:14:37AM -0700, John Linn wrote:
>
> V4
>
> I incorporated more feedback from Jamie Iles. It was
> primariy cleanup with the only significant change
> being a move to using raw_read/write in the uncompressor
> uart code.
>
> The other changes were minor updates so that the patch
> set applies to linux-next.
>
> This patch set is now tested against the linux-next branch
> from pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git.
Hi John,
I've just tried a quick dummy build of this series (with a fudge in
mach-types to get it building) and I see a couple of minor sparse
warnings:
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.c:54:13: warning: symbol
'xilinx_system_init' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.c:68:13: warning: symbol 'xilinx_irq_init'
was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.c:110:13: warning: symbol 'xilinx_map_io'
was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/arm/mach-xilinx/timer.c:290:18: warning: symbol 'xttcpss_sys_timer'
was not declared. Should it be static?
I think all of these can be resolved by including "common.h" in both
timer.c and common.c.
I've put a couple of nitpicks for the individual patches, sorry I didn't
spot them before. Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Jamie Iles <[email protected]>
Jamie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jamie Iles [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 4:20 AM
> To: John Linn
> Cc: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 0/4] ARM: Basic Xilinx Support
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:14:37AM -0700, John Linn wrote:
> >
> > V4
> >
> > I incorporated more feedback from Jamie Iles. It was
> > primariy cleanup with the only significant change
> > being a move to using raw_read/write in the uncompressor
> > uart code.
> >
> > The other changes were minor updates so that the patch
> > set applies to linux-next.
> >
> > This patch set is now tested against the linux-next branch
> > from pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/sfr/linux-next.git.
>
> Hi John,
>
> I've just tried a quick dummy build of this series (with a fudge in
> mach-types to get it building) and I see a couple of minor sparse
> warnings:
>
> arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.c:54:13: warning: symbol
> 'xilinx_system_init' was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.c:68:13: warning: symbol 'xilinx_irq_init'
> was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/arm/mach-xilinx/common.c:110:13: warning: symbol 'xilinx_map_io'
> was not declared. Should it be static?
> arch/arm/mach-xilinx/timer.c:290:18: warning: symbol
'xttcpss_sys_timer'
> was not declared. Should it be static?
>
> I think all of these can be resolved by including "common.h" in both
> timer.c and common.c.
Will have a look at it. Easy enough to fix and verify.
>
> I've put a couple of nitpicks for the individual patches, sorry I
didn't
> spot them before. Otherwise,
No problem, appreciate your time, patience and input.
Thanks,
John
>
> Reviewed-by: Jamie Iles <[email protected]>
>
> Jamie
This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.