[PATCH 05/12] Add dummy smsc911x regulators to cm-t35.

[Igor Grinberg]

Hi Tony,

On 03/27/12 19:28, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Igor Grinberg <grinberg at compulab.co.il> [120327 08:56]:
>> Hi Russ,
>>
>> This patch works, but can we, please use the attached patch instead?
> 
> Hmm what's the difference here? Do you have some real controllable
> regulator for one of the smsc911x instances?

Well, the difference here is that those regulators will only be present
if the smsc911x controllers are present and their initialization is done
along with the controllers.
Also, I want to separate the cm-t35 from sb-t35 for future easier
refactoring of the sb-t35 code so it can be reused also on cm-t3517.

Only vddvario for smsc911x.0 is controllable - connected to VIO, but
VIO will never be disabled as it also controls many other devices
(DRAM is among them), so I prefer it to be dummy and keep it together
with vdd33a.

> 
> Anyways, I take it that you have tested that both smsc911x interfaces
> work now?

Yes, both regulators are registered and found by the smsc911x driver.
There is some kind of problem with the smsc911x.1, but it looks unrelated
to the patch:

smsc911x: Driver version 2008-10-21
irq 323: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
[<c001ae6c>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0xfc) from [<c0088960>] (__report_bad_irq+0x28/0xbc)
[<c0088960>] (__report_bad_irq+0x28/0xbc) from [<c0088bd4>] (note_interrupt+0x1e0/0x230)
[<c0088bd4>] (note_interrupt+0x1e0/0x230) from [<c0086e48>] (handle_irq_event_percpu+0xb0/0x1a0)
[<c0086e48>] (handle_irq_event_percpu+0xb0/0x1a0) from [<c0086f74>] (handle_irq_event+0x3c/0x5c)
[<c0086f74>] (handle_irq_event+0x3c/0x5c) from [<c00895a0>] (handle_level_irq+0x90/0xfc)
[<c00895a0>] (handle_level_irq+0x90/0xfc) from [<c008699c>] (generic_handle_irq+0x38/0x40)
[<c008699c>] (generic_handle_irq+0x38/0x40) from [<c02635a0>] (gpio_irq_handler+0x1b0/0x20c)
[<c02635a0>] (gpio_irq_handler+0x1b0/0x20c) from [<c008699c>] (generic_handle_irq+0x38/0x40)
[<c008699c>] (generic_handle_irq+0x38/0x40) from [<c0015404>] (handle_IRQ+0x38/0x84)
[<c0015404>] (handle_IRQ+0x38/0x84) from [<c000865c>] (omap3_intc_handle_irq+0x48/0x4c)
[<c000865c>] (omap3_intc_handle_irq+0x48/0x4c) from [<c00140c4>] (__irq_svc+0x44/0x78)
Exception stack(0xcf02de20 to 0xcf02de68)
de20: cf02c018 cf02c000 00000000 cf02de58 60000013 c06739fc 00000143 c06739fc
de40: 60000013 00000508 c06739dc 00000000 00022d69 cf02de68 cf02b3c0 c04890fc
de60: 20000013 ffffffff
[<c00140c4>] (__irq_svc+0x44/0x78) from [<c04890fc>] (_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x64/0x68)
[<c04890fc>] (_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x64/0x68) from [<c0087d50>] (__setup_irq+0x1b4/0x3d4)
[<c0087d50>] (__setup_irq+0x1b4/0x3d4) from [<c00881a0>] (request_threaded_irq+0xdc/0x148)
[<c00881a0>] (request_threaded_irq+0xdc/0x148) from [<c0482954>] (smsc911x_drv_probe+0x350/0x528)
[<c0482954>] (smsc911x_drv_probe+0x350/0x528) from [<c02d5a8c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c)
[<c02d5a8c>] (platform_drv_probe+0x18/0x1c) from [<c02d4580>] (really_probe+0x64/0x160)
[<c02d4580>] (really_probe+0x64/0x160) from [<c02d46c4>] (driver_probe_device+0x48/0x60)
[<c02d46c4>] (driver_probe_device+0x48/0x60) from [<c02d4770>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98)
[<c02d4770>] (__driver_attach+0x94/0x98) from [<c02d2ffc>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x80)
[<c02d2ffc>] (bus_for_each_dev+0x54/0x80) from [<c02d3730>] (bus_add_driver+0xa8/0x2a4)
[<c02d3730>] (bus_add_driver+0xa8/0x2a4) from [<c02d4d6c>] (driver_register+0x78/0x184)
[<c02d4d6c>] (driver_register+0x78/0x184) from [<c0008758>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x184)
[<c0008758>] (do_one_initcall+0x34/0x184) from [<c0613248>] (do_basic_setup+0x34/0x40)
[<c0613248>] (do_basic_setup+0x34/0x40) from [<c06132b8>] (kernel_init+0x64/0xec)
[<c06132b8>] (kernel_init+0x64/0xec) from [<c00154cc>] (kernel_thread_exit+0x0/0x8)
handlers:
[<c032ea98>] smsc911x_irqhandler
Disabling IRQ #323

I still haven't had a chance to look into this.
Does anyone have a clue?

-- 
Regards,
Igor.