From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Adam Ford Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:05:34 -0500 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 4/6] am33xx: Provide platform data for mmc In-Reply-To: <20170425211039.GN12511@bill-the-cat> References: <20170422065048.8617-1-lokeshvutla@ti.com> <20170422065048.8617-5-lokeshvutla@ti.com> <20170425211039.GN12511@bill-the-cat> 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 On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 12:20:46PM +0530, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Lokesh Vutla >> --- >> board/ti/am335x/board.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/board/ti/am335x/board.c b/board/ti/am335x/board.c >> index 3e842d3187..566183e669 100644 >> --- a/board/ti/am335x/board.c >> +++ b/board/ti/am335x/board.c >> @@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ >> */ >> >> #include >> +#include >> #include >> #include >> #include >> @@ -26,6 +27,7 @@ >> #include >> #include >> #include >> +#include >> #include >> #include >> #include >> @@ -892,3 +894,33 @@ void board_fit_image_post_process(void **p_image, size_t *p_size) >> secure_boot_verify_image(p_image, p_size); >> } >> #endif >> + >> +#if !CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(OF_CONTROL) >> +static const struct omap_hsmmc_plat am335x_mmc0_platdata = { >> + .base_addr = (struct hsmmc *)0x48060000, > > OK. So, off the top of my head, from Adam's series about converting > omap3, OMAP_HSMMC1_BASE and company aren't defined correctly? Or we're > playing games with that 0x100 offset? I bring this up as since we have > defines for these base addresses already, we should make use of them, > but in this case first we'll have to do... something, yes? > The base address for the AM335xx he has listed is correct at 0x480600, however the offset is 0x100. Without without my patch I would expect this to correctly. SYSCONFIG is at offset 0x110 and for OMAP3 the offset would be 0x10. His patch looks like it supports the condition without OF_CONTROL, so maybe using a #define here would be appropriate, however without OF_CONFIG, I am guessing my patch would break stuff. I only did my series to eliminate the #ifdef stuff, but we might have to add something like && !define (OF_CONTROL) to my series. If you want to pull his in, I can rebase and resubmit my series against his. I don't have an AM33xx or OMAP4+ to test, I only have a DM3730 to test. adam > -- > Tom > > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot at lists.denx.de > https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot >