From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <51186901.9060400@atmel.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:44:01 +0800 From: Josh Wu MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 v3] at91: PMECC: enable PMECC in dt for at91sam9x5ek, at91sam9n12ek References: <1358945232-2282-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <5113D347.8050409@atmel.com> <20130210004010.GE16278@quad.lixom.net> In-Reply-To: <20130210004010.GE16278@quad.lixom.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Artem Bityutskiy , Nicolas Ferre , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi, Olof On 2/10/2013 8:40 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 05:16:07PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> On 01/23/2013 01:47 PM, Josh Wu : >>> Those patches will enable PMECC in dt parameters for at91sam9x5ek and >>> at91sam9n12ek. >>> >>> The PMECC driver will check minimum required ecc on ONFI parameter from NAND >>> flash. >>> >>> If pmecc-cap, pmecc-sector-size in dts file is specified, use those two. >>> otherwise, set those according to NAND flash ONFI parameters. >>> >>> If the pmecc-cap, pmecc-sector-size in dts are different with ecc requirement >>> in ONFI, print out a warning. >>> >>> >>> For the following compile error: >>> ERROR (phandle_references): Reference to non-existent node or label "pinctrl_ssc0_tx" >>> >>> ERROR: Input tree has errors, aborting (use -f to force output) >>> make[2]: *** [arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20ek.dtb] Error 2 >>> >>> the fixes are already merged in Linux mainline in v3.8-rc4. >>> you can find in: >>> 544ae6b2e676c3c37fb8c93ef9327932fc2e5bc2 (ARM: at91/dts: add pinctrl support for SSC peripheral) >>> ea03c81521bde526570e1dec96eaa21fe5ac84a2 (ASoC: atmel-ssc: add pinctrl selection to driver) >> Artem, >> >> I propose to take patches 2 and 3/5 of this series via arm-soc git tree. >> I will specify to merge them at the end of the merge-window so that the >> Device Tree properties will not be out-of-sync with driver modifications >> (may not cause big issues anyway). > I'm not cc:d on the patches, but if it's just new properties then there's > no reason to hold off to "late in the merge window". There's actually no > way for you to hold that off yourself, since we won't accept new patches > to arm-soc that late. > > I don't see any cc to devicetree-discuss of the device tree bindings > though, and no update of Documentation/device-tree/bindings/, so the > patches are not ready to go in yet. Since in my commit: a41b51a1f7c15a1b00f30a3ad2d0373ad51b883d (mtd: at91: add dt parameters for Atmel PMECC), it already added following properties to DT documentation: atmel,pmecc-cap atmel,pmecc-sector-size atmel,pmecc-lookup-table-offset so in this patches series, NO. 2 and 3 just add it to at91 board's dts file according to the DT documentation. Indeed, this patch series make a little bit different from the DT documentation, that is: the ROM code mapping size are smaller than the DT documentation example. But original DT documentation example still works. So I think the DT documentation's explanation are proper for this patch series. It seems I don't have to update the DT documentation so far. > > > -Olof Best Regards, Josh Wu From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: josh.wu@atmel.com (Josh Wu) Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:44:01 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 0/5 v3] at91: PMECC: enable PMECC in dt for at91sam9x5ek, at91sam9n12ek In-Reply-To: <20130210004010.GE16278@quad.lixom.net> References: <1358945232-2282-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <5113D347.8050409@atmel.com> <20130210004010.GE16278@quad.lixom.net> Message-ID: <51186901.9060400@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, Olof On 2/10/2013 8:40 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 05:16:07PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> On 01/23/2013 01:47 PM, Josh Wu : >>> Those patches will enable PMECC in dt parameters for at91sam9x5ek and >>> at91sam9n12ek. >>> >>> The PMECC driver will check minimum required ecc on ONFI parameter from NAND >>> flash. >>> >>> If pmecc-cap, pmecc-sector-size in dts file is specified, use those two. >>> otherwise, set those according to NAND flash ONFI parameters. >>> >>> If the pmecc-cap, pmecc-sector-size in dts are different with ecc requirement >>> in ONFI, print out a warning. >>> >>> >>> For the following compile error: >>> ERROR (phandle_references): Reference to non-existent node or label "pinctrl_ssc0_tx" >>> >>> ERROR: Input tree has errors, aborting (use -f to force output) >>> make[2]: *** [arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g20ek.dtb] Error 2 >>> >>> the fixes are already merged in Linux mainline in v3.8-rc4. >>> you can find in: >>> 544ae6b2e676c3c37fb8c93ef9327932fc2e5bc2 (ARM: at91/dts: add pinctrl support for SSC peripheral) >>> ea03c81521bde526570e1dec96eaa21fe5ac84a2 (ASoC: atmel-ssc: add pinctrl selection to driver) >> Artem, >> >> I propose to take patches 2 and 3/5 of this series via arm-soc git tree. >> I will specify to merge them at the end of the merge-window so that the >> Device Tree properties will not be out-of-sync with driver modifications >> (may not cause big issues anyway). > I'm not cc:d on the patches, but if it's just new properties then there's > no reason to hold off to "late in the merge window". There's actually no > way for you to hold that off yourself, since we won't accept new patches > to arm-soc that late. > > I don't see any cc to devicetree-discuss of the device tree bindings > though, and no update of Documentation/device-tree/bindings/, so the > patches are not ready to go in yet. Since in my commit: a41b51a1f7c15a1b00f30a3ad2d0373ad51b883d (mtd: at91: add dt parameters for Atmel PMECC), it already added following properties to DT documentation: atmel,pmecc-cap atmel,pmecc-sector-size atmel,pmecc-lookup-table-offset so in this patches series, NO. 2 and 3 just add it to at91 board's dts file according to the DT documentation. Indeed, this patch series make a little bit different from the DT documentation, that is: the ROM code mapping size are smaller than the DT documentation example. But original DT documentation example still works. So I think the DT documentation's explanation are proper for this patch series. It seems I don't have to update the DT documentation so far. > > > -Olof Best Regards, Josh Wu