[PATCH v1 3/5] ARM: imx28evk: add mmc dt support

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 16:20 Wed 14 Mar     , Dong Aisheng wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:30:35PM +0800, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > On 12:45 Tue 13 Mar     , Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On 03/13/2012 11:52 AM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 09:39:30AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > >> On 03/13/2012 03:47 AM, Dong Aisheng wrote:
> > > >>> From: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng at linaro.org>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <dong.aisheng at linaro.org>
> > > >>> ---
> > > >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/imx28-evk.dts |   14 ++++++++++++++
> > > >>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/imx28.dtsi    |   33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >>>  arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c    |    2 ++
> > > >>>  3 files changed, 49 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > >>
> > > >> snip
> > > >>
> > > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c
> > > >>> index 78d1129..429b88e 100644
> > > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c
> > > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mxs/imx28-dt.c
> > > >>> @@ -23,6 +23,8 @@ static const struct of_dev_auxdata imx28_auxdata_lookup[] __initconst = {
> > > >>>  	OF_DEV_AUXDATA("arm,pl011", MX28_DUART_BASE_ADDR, "duart", NULL),
> > > >>>  	OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-fec", MX28_ENET_MAC0_BASE_ADDR, "imx28-fec.0", NULL),
> > > >>>  	OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-fec", MX28_ENET_MAC1_BASE_ADDR, "imx28-fec.1", NULL),
> > > >>> +	OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-mmc", MX28_SSP0_BASE_ADDR, "mxs-mmc.0", NULL),
> > > >>> +	OF_DEV_AUXDATA("fsl,imx28-mmc", MX28_SSP1_BASE_ADDR, "mxs-mmc.1", NULL),
> > > >>
> > > >> Why is this needed?
> > > > 
> > > > These are needed for the drivers which have still the mxs-mmc.* names
> > > > to find their clocks. Alternatively we could also add the appropriate
> > > > clocks to the clock file. Don't know if that's better though.
> > > 
> > > Ah, yes I should have known that... If clk lookup is all that's needed,
> > > I'd suggest adding the necessary clk lookups either here or in the clock
> > > code. Not much difference, but at least it removes the use of
> > > *_BASE_ADDR defines.
> > Agreed we do this on AT91
> > 
> I'm willing to do like that.
> But i'm new to this, can you help point our where the code i can reference
> in Rob suggested way?
mach-at91

Best Regards,
J.