From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bin Meng Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:09:38 +0800 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] x86: baytrail: azalia DT configuration mock-up In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi George, On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 9:09 PM, George McCollister wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Bin Meng wrote: >> Hi George, >> >> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:57 AM, George McCollister >> wrote: >>> I'm looking for feedback on this mock-up of fsp,azalia-config DT >>> before I proceed to writing code. I included everything in fsp for >>> context. >>> >>> fsp { >>> compatible = "intel,baytrail-fsp"; >>> fsp,mrc-init-tseg-size = <0>; >>> fsp,mrc-init-mmio-size = <0x800>; >>> fsp,mrc-init-spd-addr1 = <0xa0>; >>> fsp,mrc-init-spd-addr2 = <0xa2>; >>> fsp,emmc-boot-mode = <2>; >>> fsp,enable-sdio; >>> fsp,enable-sdcard; >>> fsp,enable-hsuart1; >>> fsp,enable-spi; >>> fsp,enable-sata; >>> fsp,sata-mode = <1>; >>> fsp,enable-azalia; >>> fsp,azalia-config { >>> compatible = "intel,baytrail-fsp-azalia-config"; >> >> I believe this azalia config is platform-specific, so tagging it with >> a baytrail-fsp- prefix is OK? > Yes. As far as I can tell there aren't any other platforms with an > identical azalia config structure. > I plan on putting the code to handle this in arch/x86/cpu/baytrail/fsp_configs.c > Do you think we should shorten the name to "intel,baytrail-fsp-ac"? If > we leave it as is it will be the longest entry in compat_names[]. How about changing all "intel,baytrail-fsp" to "intel,byt-fsp"? ac does not look straight-forward. > >> >>> fsp,pme-enable = <1>; >>> fsp,docking-supported = <1>; >>> fsp,docking-attached = <0>; >>> fsp,hdmi-codec-enable = <1>; >>> fsp,azalia-v-ci-enable = <1>; >>> fsp,rsvdbits = <0>; >>> fsp,reset-wait-timer-us = <300>; >>> alc262 { >>> compatible = "fsp,azalia-verb-table"; >> >> This generic name fsp,azalia-ver-table means it is suitable to all >> platforms, correct? > No, I was concerned with this name being too long. This will be > specific to baytrail-fsp. > How about "intel,baytrail-fsp-avt"? > >> >>> fsp,vendor-device-id = <0x10ec0262>; >>> fsp,sub-system-id = <0>; >>> fsp,revision-id = <0xff>; >>> fsp,front-panel-support = <1>; >>> fsp,number-of-rear-jacks = <11>; >>> fsp,number-of-front-jacks = <2>; >>> fsp,verb-table-data = < >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x11) */ >>> 0x01171cf0 >>> 0x01171d11 >>> 0x01171e11 >>> 0x01171f41 >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x12) */ >>> 0x01271cf0 >>> 0x01271d11 >>> 0x01271e11 >>> 0x01271f41 >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x14) */ >>> 0x01471c10 >>> 0x01471d40 >>> 0x01471e01 >>> 0x01471f01 >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x15) */ >>> 0x01571cf0 >>> 0x01571d11 >>> 0x01571e11 >>> 0x01571f41 >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x16) */ >>> 0x01671cf0 >>> 0x01671d11 >>> 0x01671e11 >>> 0x01671f41 >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x18) */ >>> 0x01871c20 >>> 0x01871d98 >>> 0x01871ea1 >>> 0x01871f01 >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x19) */ >>> 0x01971c21 >>> 0x01971d98 >>> 0x01971ea1 >>> 0x01971f02 >>> /* Pin Complex (NID 0x1A) */ >>> 0x01a71c2f >>> 0x01a71d30 >>> 0x01a71e81 >>> 0x01a71f01 >>> /* Pin Complex */ >>> 0x01b71c1f >>> 0x01b71d40 >>> 0x01b71e21 >>> 0x01b71f02 >>> /* Pin Complex */ >>> 0x01c71cf0 >>> 0x01c71d11 >>> 0x01c71e11 >>> 0x01c71f41 >>> /* Pin Complex */ >>> 0x01d71c01 >>> 0x01d71dc6 >>> 0x01d71e14 >>> 0x01d71f40 >>> /* Pin Complex */ >>> 0x01e71cf0 >>> 0x01e71d11 >>> 0x01e71e11 >>> 0x01e71f41 >>> /* Pin Complex */ >>> 0x01f71cf0 >>> 0x01f71d11 >>> 0x01f71e11 >>> 0x01f71f41 >>> >; >>> }; >>> }; >> >> [snip] >> Regards, Bin