Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753952AbbGJH70 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 03:59:26 -0400 Received: from nasmtp01.atmel.com ([192.199.1.245]:5316 "EHLO DVREDG01.corp.atmel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753865AbbGJH7S (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2015 03:59:18 -0400 Message-ID: <559F7B4F.9010307@atmel.com> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:59:11 +0800 From: Josh Wu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Maxime Ripard CC: Nicolas Ferre , , Guenter Roeck , Wei Yongjun , Alexandre Belloni , Ben Dooks , , "Krzysztof Kozlowski" , Sebastian Reichel , Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov , David Woodhouse , Fabian Frederick , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] power: reset: at91: add sama5d3 reset function References: <1436436947-11210-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <20150709120335.GW28632@lukather> <559F36CC.7020203@atmel.com> <20150710065440.GY28632@lukather> In-Reply-To: <20150710065440.GY28632@lukather> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.168.5.13] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3607 Lines: 93 On 7/10/2015 2:54 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:06:52AM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: >> Hi, Maxime >> >> On 7/9/2015 8:03 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 09, 2015 at 06:15:46PM +0800, Josh Wu wrote: >>>> As since sama5d3, to reset the chip, we don't need to shutdown the ddr >>>> controller. >>>> >>>> So add a new compatible string and new restart function for sama5d3 and >>>> later chips. As we don't use sama5d3 ddr controller, so remove it as >>>> well. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Josh Wu >>>> Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre >>>> --- >>>> >>>> drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c >>>> index 36dc52f..8944b63 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/power/reset/at91-reset.c >>>> @@ -123,6 +123,14 @@ static int at91sam9g45_restart(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long mode, >>>> return NOTIFY_DONE; >>>> } >>>> +static int sama5d3_restart(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long mode, >>>> + void *cmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + writel(cpu_to_le32(AT91_RSTC_KEY | AT91_RSTC_PERRST | AT91_RSTC_PROCRST), >>>> + at91_rstc_base); >>>> + return NOTIFY_DONE; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> static void __init at91_reset_status(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> { >>>> u32 reg = readl(at91_rstc_base + AT91_RSTC_SR); >>>> @@ -155,13 +163,13 @@ static void __init at91_reset_status(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> static const struct of_device_id at91_ramc_of_match[] = { >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-sdramc", }, >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-ddramc", }, >>>> - { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-ddramc", }, >>>> { /* sentinel */ } >>>> }; >>>> static const struct of_device_id at91_reset_of_match[] = { >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9260-rstc", .data = at91sam9260_restart }, >>>> { .compatible = "atmel,at91sam9g45-rstc", .data = at91sam9g45_restart }, >>>> + { .compatible = "atmel,sama5d3-rstc", .data = sama5d3_restart }, >>>> { /* sentinel */ } >>>> }; >>>> @@ -181,17 +189,21 @@ static int at91_reset_of_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> return -ENODEV; >>>> } >>>> - for_each_matching_node(np, at91_ramc_of_match) { >>>> - at91_ramc_base[idx] = of_iomap(np, 0); >>>> - if (!at91_ramc_base[idx]) { >>>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Could not map ram controller address\n"); >>>> - return -ENODEV; >>>> + match = of_match_node(at91_reset_of_match, pdev->dev.of_node); >>>> + at91_restart_nb.notifier_call = match->data; >>>> + >>>> + if (match->data != sama5d3_restart) { >>> Using of_device_is_compatible seems more appropriate. >>> >>> Also, why are you changing the order of this loop and the notifier >>> registration? >> I moved this order because I use the match->data to compare whether is >> sama5d3_restart. So I need to move this function (of_match_node) up. > Ah right, my bad. > > Still, testing against the kernel pointer is not that great. > > It would be great to use something explicit instead, like > of_device_is_compatible. I agree. I will use of_device_is_compatible() in v2. And that can avoid the order change in the loop as well. Thanks. Best Regards, Josh Wu > > Maxime > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/