[PATCH 2/2] spi: fsl-spi: Allow dynamic allocation of CPM1 parameter RAM

[christophe leroy]

Le 03/10/2014 22:24, Scott Wood a écrit :
> On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 22:15 +0200, christophe leroy wrote:
>> Le 03/10/2014 16:44, Mark Brown a écrit :
>>> On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:56:09PM +0200, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>>
>>>> +config CPM1_RELOCSPI
>>>> +	bool "Dynamic SPI relocation"
>>>> +	default n
>>>> +	help
>>>> +	  On recent MPC8xx (at least MPC866 and MPC885) SPI can be relocated
>>>> +	  without micropatch. This activates relocation to a dynamically
>>>> +	  allocated area in the CPM Dual port RAM.
>>>> +	  When combined with SPI relocation patch (for older MPC8xx) it avoids
>>>> +	  the "loss" of additional Dual port RAM space just above the patch,
>>>> +	  which might be needed for example when using the CPM QMC.
>>> Something like this shouldn't be a compile time option.  Either it
>>> should be unconditional or it should be triggered in some system
>>> specific manner (from DT, from knowing about other users or similar).
>> Can't be unconditional as older versions of mpc8xx (eg MPC860) don't
>> support relocation without a micropatch.
>> I have therefore submitted a v2 based on a DTS compatible property.
> So the device tree change is about whether relocation is supported, not
> whether it is required?
Indeed no, my intension is to say that relocation is requested. Do you 
mean that it should then not use a compatible ?
> Is this specific to SPI or does the relocation
> mechanism work for other things?
Relocation is the same for I2C.

It is also possible to relocate SMC1 and SMC2 parameter RAM but only 
with a micropatch.
Today, the kernel only implements relocation of SMC1, and it relocates 
it at a fixed address just after SMC2 at offset 0x1FC0.
>
> How about checking for the existing specific-SoC compatibles?
What do you mean ?

Christophe

---
Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
http://www.avast.com