From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2019 16:28:18 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v1 1/4] arm: socfpga: imply SPL config instead of select In-Reply-To: <1c639b12-e963-f5b4-9136-83ebe0cd1a9b@denx.de> References: <20190107211423.10151-1-simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com> <20190107211423.10151-2-simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com> <033b301a-612d-3b80-7ecc-04530851c1ec@denx.de> <1dd165cd-2cad-013b-877c-78fe5780f9cf@gmail.com> <00f186a1-7aea-8d46-770d-b5e08f1f92c2@denx.de> <8d7142cb-5674-57d2-dce2-a4595b8a5538@gmail.com> <9bcf5990-df16-b10f-4f61-4f40bdcd5eb0@kernel.org> <28940ce1-aba0-6fcc-7dcb-8d6f4bc34ea1@gmail.com> <1c639b12-e963-f5b4-9136-83ebe0cd1a9b@denx.de> Message-ID: <20190114212818.GR5463@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 07:31:26PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > On 1/14/19 5:05 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > > Hi Dinh, > > Hi, > > > Am 14.01.2019 um 16:58 schrieb Dinh Nguyen: > >> Hi Simon, > >> > >> On 1/14/19 9:50 AM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>> Am 11.01.2019 um 23:02 schrieb Marek Vasut: > >>>> On 1/11/19 9:39 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>> Am 07.01.2019 um 23:53 schrieb Marek Vasut: > >>>>>> On 1/7/19 10:14 PM, Simon Goldschmidt wrote: > >>>>>>> In order to build a smaller SPL, let's imply SPL_DM_RESET and > >>>>>>> SPL_WATCHDOG_SUPPORT instead of selecting them, so they can be > >>>>>>> disabled > >>>>>>> via defconfig. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This also seems to be required to use OF_PLATDATA, as the reset > >>>>>>> drivers > >>>>>>> don't seem to work with it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How do you un-reset IP blocks if you disable the reset controller ? > >>>>> > >>>>> I found that out just now: there's the function > >>>>> 'reset_deassert_peripherals_handoff()' in spl_gen5.c that should > >>>>> "De-assert reset for peripherals and bridges based on handoff". > >>>>> However, > >>>>> at least for Gen5, it just writes a 0 to rstmgr->permodrst. By doing > >>>>> that, it enables *ALL* peripherals on the SoC (except for some DMA > >>>>> channels that aren't really used) :-) > >>>>> > >>>>> I guess that needs some cleaning up as well ;-) > >>>> > >>>> Yes > >>>> > >>>>> I think the proper thing to do here would be to remove this > >>>>> function and > >>>>> convert all drivers to provide appropriate 'resets' properties in the > >>>>> dts? > >>>> > >>>> Indeed > >>> > >>> So I just did that and it works nice for SPL and U-Boot: By adding some > >>> "resets" properties the the main dtsi and adding reset bulk code to the > >>> cadence_qspi, denali_dt nand and drivers, I can nearly remove the reset > >>> code from arch/mach_socfpga. > >>> > >>> The problem would be that now Linux cannot use peripherals that aren't > >>> enabled by U-Boot because it relies on them being enabled. How are such > >>> dependencies solved? Because even if I would add reset support in the > >>> corresponding Linux drivers, we probably could not bootolder Kernels > >>> (e.g. the Debian 9 kernel - v4.9.x) with a new U-Boot... > >>> > >> > >> I added an early reset driver for SoCFPGA that should take care of this. > >> The patch is in v5.0-rc2[1]. > > > > OK, it's good to know that this work is already done, I haven't > > monitored this close enough. > > We had the same problem with A10, indeed. > > > But am I correct that my above problem remains even in v5.0 as not all > > peripherals in socfpga.dtsi have a "resets" property set (e.g. mmc and > > qspi) and would thuse not be taken out of reset by Linux? > > > > Plus: should U-Boot work with older Linux kernels? Because if so, we > > need fallback code in U-Boot to unreset peripherals when running with an > > older kernel... > > Yes, it'd break old broken kernels . The real question is, do we care ? Yes, we care. Especially since it sounds like we're talking about something that's an LTS and not super-ancient vendor kernel. Off the top of my head I can't recall if we ever fully removed support in sunxi for the vendor kernel in some cases, or just made it, eventually, opt-in as it was a fairly annoying incompatible behavior case. But yes, in general, we do care about old kernels and need to be loud and clear about when we're removing support for them on a given SoC due to it being a PITA to support both ways of doing X and people have had Y years to migrate or correct their kernel. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: not available URL: