Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

Tony,

Thye LDP platform network interface still doesn't seem to work.  There
seems to be several reasons for this:

1. wrong resource size in arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
2. missing OMAPx4xx configuration from drivers/net/smc911x.h
3. missing SMC9211 chip IDs from drivers/net/smc911x.c

The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?

Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
should do something with it one way or another.

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[David Miller]

From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000

> The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
> lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
> something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
> on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?
> 
> Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
> half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
> should do something with it one way or another.

Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.

The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.

If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
2.6.29-rcX

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Steve Sakoman]

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:45 PM, David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000
>
>> The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
>> lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
>> something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support
>> on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?
>>
>> Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
>> half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
>> should do something with it one way or another.
>
> Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
>
> The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
>
> If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> 2.6.29-rcX

That would be great!  The patch I recently submitted for Overo's SMSC
support really does need the platform specified interrupt flag patch
to function properly.  So accelerating those patches into 2.6.29-rcX
gets my vote :-)

Steve

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:45:30PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000
> 
> > The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
> > lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
> > something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
> > on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?
> > 
> > Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
> > half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
> > should do something with it one way or another.
> 
> Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
>
> The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> 
> If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> 2.6.29-rcX

Hmm.  Since we should assume that the other smc911x using platforms work
as-is, merging Steve's first four and the LDP patch seems to be a sane
idea.  We can queue the remainder for when bugs are reported or the
next merge window, whichever comes earlier.

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Tony Lindgren]

* David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> [090202 13:45]:
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000
> 
> > The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
> > lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
> > something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
> > on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?

Would be nice to have it of course!

> > Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
> > half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
> > should do something with it one way or another.
> 
> Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
> 
> The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> 
> If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> 2.6.29-rcX

That would be great, more platforms to test it on.

Tony

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 03:57:45PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> [090202 13:45]:
> > From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000
> > 
> > > The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
> > > lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
> > > something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
> > > on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?
> 
> Would be nice to have it of course!
> 
> > > Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
> > > half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
> > > should do something with it one way or another.
> > 
> > Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
> > 
> > The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> > 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> > specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> > 
> > If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> > 2.6.29-rcX
> 
> That would be great, more platforms to test it on.

Mainline during the -rc series is not for pushing stuff to get additional
testing.  It's for resolving regressions and fixing bugs, not introducing
changes which could cause regressions and bugs.

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Steve.Glendinning]

Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote on 03/02/2009 
08:10:42:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 03:57:45PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> [090202 13:45]:
> > > Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
> > > 
> > > The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> > > 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> > > specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> > > 
> > > If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> > > 2.6.29-rcX
> > 
> > That would be great, more platforms to test it on.
> 
> Mainline during the -rc series is not for pushing stuff to get 
additional
> testing.  It's for resolving regressions and fixing bugs, not 
introducing
> changes which could cause regressions and bugs.

Does it help that the smsc911x driver is new this cycle?

Without these patches the driver fails to register its interrupt on many 
arm platforms, so it could be said that these patches do fix regressions 
against the smc911x driver it's intended to replace.

On a related note, if these go in during the next merge window, is there a 
mechanism for ensuring the platform support patches in the set are merged 
after these?

Steve

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Feb 03, 2009 at 11:02:31AM +0000, Steve.Glendinning@smsc.com wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote on 03/02/2009 
> 08:10:42:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 03:57:45PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > * David Miller <davem@davemloft.net> [090202 13:45]:
> > > > Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
> > > > 
> > > > The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> > > > 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> > > > specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> > > > 2.6.29-rcX
> > > 
> > > That would be great, more platforms to test it on.
> > 
> > Mainline during the -rc series is not for pushing stuff to get 
> additional
> > testing.  It's for resolving regressions and fixing bugs, not 
> introducing
> > changes which could cause regressions and bugs.
> 
> Does it help that the smsc911x driver is new this cycle?

No.

> Without these patches the driver fails to register its interrupt on many 
> arm platforms, so it could be said that these patches do fix regressions 
> against the smc911x driver it's intended to replace.

As far as I'm aware, the smc911x driver works as is on the majority of
ARM platforms.  The fact that it works is enough justification to leave
well alone during the -rc series.

Changing it involves risk that something will break, which will cause
a regression.  This is not a risk that we want, and we certainly don't
want any new regressions in the -rc series.  The proper time to take
that risk is during the merge window.

> On a related note, if these go in during the next merge window, is there a 
> mechanism for ensuring the platform support patches in the set are merged 
> after these?

No, and that's the problem with splitting it across two separate trees,
which is a point I was trying to make when these patches first came to
my attention.

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:29:09PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:45:30PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000
> > 
> > > The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
> > > lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
> > > something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
> > > on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?
> > > 
> > > Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
> > > half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
> > > should do something with it one way or another.
> > 
> > Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
> >
> > The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> > 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> > specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> > 
> > If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> > 2.6.29-rcX
> 
> Hmm.  Since we should assume that the other smc911x using platforms work
> as-is, merging Steve's first four and the LDP patch seems to be a sane
> idea.  We can queue the remainder for when bugs are reported or the
> next merge window, whichever comes earlier.

So, what's happening on this?

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:48:55AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:29:09PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:45:30PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000
> > > 
> > > > The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
> > > > lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
> > > > something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
> > > > on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?
> > > > 
> > > > Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
> > > > half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
> > > > should do something with it one way or another.
> > > 
> > > Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
> > >
> > > The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> > > 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> > > specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> > > 
> > > If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> > > 2.6.29-rcX
> > 
> > Hmm.  Since we should assume that the other smc911x using platforms work
> > as-is, merging Steve's first four and the LDP patch seems to be a sane
> > idea.  We can queue the remainder for when bugs are reported or the
> > next merge window, whichever comes earlier.
> 
> So, what's happening on this?

For the record, this is what the patch for fixing smc911x to work on
the LDP looks like.  It's been tested on the LDP and works.  It has
a minimal impact, so this is probably a better patch to merge for
2.6.29 rather than the smsc911x conversion patches which are more
invasive.

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
index 61f7c36..d544965 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
@@ -81,7 +87,7 @@ static inline void __init ldp_init_smc911x(void)
 	}
 
 	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].start = cs_mem_base + 0x0;
-	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].end   = cs_mem_base + 0xf;
+	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].end   = cs_mem_base + 0xff;
 	udelay(100);
 
 	eth_gpio = LDP_SMC911X_GPIO;
diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.h b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
index 870b4c3..a45952e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/smc911x.h
+++ b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
@@ -42,6 +42,16 @@
   #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
   #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
   #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
+#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP34XX)
+  #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
+  #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
+  #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
+  #define SMC_MEM_RESERVED	1
+#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP24XX)
+  #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
+  #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
+  #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
+  #define SMC_MEM_RESERVED	1
 #else
 /*
  * Default configuration
@@ -675,6 +685,7 @@ smc_pxa_dma_outsl(struct smc911x_local *lp, u_long physaddr,
 #define CHIP_9116	0x0116
 #define CHIP_9117	0x0117
 #define CHIP_9118	0x0118
+#define CHIP_9211	0x9211
 #define CHIP_9215	0x115A
 #define CHIP_9217	0x117A
 #define CHIP_9218	0x118A
@@ -689,6 +700,7 @@ static const struct chip_id chip_ids[] =  {
 	{ CHIP_9116, "LAN9116" },
 	{ CHIP_9117, "LAN9117" },
 	{ CHIP_9118, "LAN9118" },
+	{ CHIP_9211, "LAN9211" },
 	{ CHIP_9215, "LAN9215" },
 	{ CHIP_9217, "LAN9217" },
 	{ CHIP_9218, "LAN9218" },

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Tony Lindgren]

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [090210 03:56]:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:48:55AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 10:29:09PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 01:45:30PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > > > From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > > > Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:39:53 +0000
> > > > 
> > > > > The patch to fix these issues would seem to be relatively small (12
> > > > > lines in the smc911x and one line change in board-ldp.c) - is it
> > > > > something we want done for -rc4 or do we scrap the ethernet support 
> > > > > on the LDP until the SMSC driver has been merged ?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Obviously, having working ethernet would be helpful, and since it was
> > > > > half heartedly merged when the initial OMAP3 stuff went upstream we
> > > > > should do something with it one way or another.
> > > > 
> > > > Well, the SMSC driver is there already in the tree.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing not currently being scheduled to hit
> > > > 2.6.29-rcX are the recent changes to support platform
> > > > specified interrupt flags and all of that stuff.
> > > > 
> > > > If you want, we can look into pushing that work into
> > > > 2.6.29-rcX
> > > 
> > > Hmm.  Since we should assume that the other smc911x using platforms work
> > > as-is, merging Steve's first four and the LDP patch seems to be a sane
> > > idea.  We can queue the remainder for when bugs are reported or the
> > > next merge window, whichever comes earlier.
> > 
> > So, what's happening on this?
> 
> For the record, this is what the patch for fixing smc911x to work on
> the LDP looks like.  It's been tested on the LDP and works.  It has
> a minimal impact, so this is probably a better patch to merge for
> 2.6.29 rather than the smsc911x conversion patches which are more
> invasive.

Yeah, the smsc updates for omap might take a while longer to get going.
So here's my ack for this smc911x patch:

Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>

For the smsc changes, I don't have an LDP to test with. But I'll try
to get another board to work with smsc now that I have some MMC voltage
weirdness out of the way and have a proper root on MMC :) That is after
I have musb working on it so I can scp the module over g_ether..

Regards,

Tony

> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
> index 61f7c36..d544965 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
> @@ -81,7 +87,7 @@ static inline void __init ldp_init_smc911x(void)
>  	}
>  
>  	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].start = cs_mem_base + 0x0;
> -	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].end   = cs_mem_base + 0xf;
> +	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].end   = cs_mem_base + 0xff;
>  	udelay(100);
>  
>  	eth_gpio = LDP_SMC911X_GPIO;
> diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.h b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
> index 870b4c3..a45952e 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/smc911x.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
> @@ -42,6 +42,16 @@
>    #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
>    #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
>    #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP34XX)
> +  #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
> +  #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
> +  #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
> +  #define SMC_MEM_RESERVED	1
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP24XX)
> +  #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
> +  #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
> +  #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
> +  #define SMC_MEM_RESERVED	1
>  #else
>  /*
>   * Default configuration
> @@ -675,6 +685,7 @@ smc_pxa_dma_outsl(struct smc911x_local *lp, u_long physaddr,
>  #define CHIP_9116	0x0116
>  #define CHIP_9117	0x0117
>  #define CHIP_9118	0x0118
> +#define CHIP_9211	0x9211
>  #define CHIP_9215	0x115A
>  #define CHIP_9217	0x117A
>  #define CHIP_9218	0x118A
> @@ -689,6 +700,7 @@ static const struct chip_id chip_ids[] =  {
>  	{ CHIP_9116, "LAN9116" },
>  	{ CHIP_9117, "LAN9117" },
>  	{ CHIP_9118, "LAN9118" },
> +	{ CHIP_9211, "LAN9211" },
>  	{ CHIP_9215, "LAN9215" },
>  	{ CHIP_9217, "LAN9217" },
>  	{ CHIP_9218, "LAN9218" },
> 

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Yeah, the smsc updates for omap might take a while longer to get going.
> So here's my ack for this smc911x patch:
> 
> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>

Thanks.

> For the smsc changes, I don't have an LDP to test with. But I'll try
> to get another board to work with smsc now that I have some MMC voltage
> weirdness out of the way and have a proper root on MMC :) That is after
> I have musb working on it so I can scp the module over g_ether..

I've tested them both on the LDP, both work fine.

That talk of MMC voltage weirdness sounds like bug fixes - do they
need to get into mainline?

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Tony Lindgren]

* Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> [090210 13:37]:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Yeah, the smsc updates for omap might take a while longer to get going.
> > So here's my ack for this smc911x patch:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> > For the smsc changes, I don't have an LDP to test with. But I'll try
> > to get another board to work with smsc now that I have some MMC voltage
> > weirdness out of the way and have a proper root on MMC :) That is after
> > I have musb working on it so I can scp the module over g_ether..
> 
> I've tested them both on the LDP, both work fine.
> 
> That talk of MMC voltage weirdness sounds like bug fixes - do they
> need to get into mainline?

Yes, I'll check few things first and then post a patch in a separate
thread. Basically the issue is with a 3.0V internal MMC card connected
to MMC2 where omap_hsmmc.c SVDS still needs to be set to use 1.8V.

Tony

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[David Miller]

From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:37:12 +0000

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Yeah, the smsc updates for omap might take a while longer to get going.
> > So here's my ack for this smc911x patch:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> 
> Thanks.

Russell if you formally resubmit this with proper changelog, signoffs,
and acks I can merge it in quickly via the net-2.6 if you like.

Thanks.

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 05:13:48PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:37:12 +0000
> 
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > Yeah, the smsc updates for omap might take a while longer to get going.
> > > So here's my ack for this smc911x patch:
> > > 
> > > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> > 
> > Thanks.
> 
> Russell if you formally resubmit this with proper changelog, signoffs,
> and acks I can merge it in quickly via the net-2.6 if you like.

Sorry for the delay.  Please find patch below.

OMAP: enable smc911x support for LDP platform

The following patch enables SMC911x support to work on the OMAP LDP
board.  Although the SMC911x driver will eventually be obsoleted, the
smsc911x patches are rather invasive for the -rc kernels.

Rather than risk destablising smsc911x, this simpler patch is preferred
to allow the network interface to work.

Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c |    2 +-
 drivers/net/smc911x.h           |   12 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
index 61f7c36..d544965 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ldp.c
@@ -81,7 +87,7 @@ static inline void __init ldp_init_smc911x(void)
 	}
 
 	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].start = cs_mem_base + 0x0;
-	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].end   = cs_mem_base + 0xf;
+	ldp_smc911x_resources[0].end   = cs_mem_base + 0xff;
 	udelay(100);
 
 	eth_gpio = LDP_SMC911X_GPIO;
diff --git a/drivers/net/smc911x.h b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
index 870b4c3..a45952e 100644
--- a/drivers/net/smc911x.h
+++ b/drivers/net/smc911x.h
@@ -42,6 +42,16 @@
   #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
   #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
   #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
+#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP34XX)
+  #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
+  #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
+  #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
+  #define SMC_MEM_RESERVED	1
+#elif defined(CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP24XX)
+  #define SMC_USE_16BIT		0
+  #define SMC_USE_32BIT		1
+  #define SMC_IRQ_SENSE		IRQF_TRIGGER_LOW
+  #define SMC_MEM_RESERVED	1
 #else
 /*
  * Default configuration
@@ -675,6 +685,7 @@ smc_pxa_dma_outsl(struct smc911x_local *lp, u_long physaddr,
 #define CHIP_9116	0x0116
 #define CHIP_9117	0x0117
 #define CHIP_9118	0x0118
+#define CHIP_9211	0x9211
 #define CHIP_9215	0x115A
 #define CHIP_9217	0x117A
 #define CHIP_9218	0x118A
@@ -689,6 +700,7 @@ static const struct chip_id chip_ids[] =  {
 	{ CHIP_9116, "LAN9116" },
 	{ CHIP_9117, "LAN9117" },
 	{ CHIP_9118, "LAN9118" },
+	{ CHIP_9211, "LAN9211" },
 	{ CHIP_9215, "LAN9215" },
 	{ CHIP_9217, "LAN9217" },
 	{ CHIP_9218, "LAN9218" },

Re: Remaining bits for basic support of LDP

[David Miller]

From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 17:54:32 +0000

> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 05:13:48PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:37:12 +0000
> > 
> > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:02:02PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > Yeah, the smsc updates for omap might take a while longer to get going.
> > > > So here's my ack for this smc911x patch:
> > > > 
> > > > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
> > > 
> > > Thanks.
> > 
> > Russell if you formally resubmit this with proper changelog, signoffs,
> > and acks I can merge it in quickly via the net-2.6 if you like.
> 
> Sorry for the delay.  Please find patch below.
> 
> OMAP: enable smc911x support for LDP platform
> 
> The following patch enables SMC911x support to work on the OMAP LDP
> board.  Although the SMC911x driver will eventually be obsoleted, the
> smsc911x patches are rather invasive for the -rc kernels.
> 
> Rather than risk destablising smsc911x, this simpler patch is preferred
> to allow the network interface to work.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>

Applied, thanks.