[PATCH 08/10] ARM: OMAP5: hwmod data: Create initial OMAP5 SOC hwmod data

Santosh Shilimkar santosh.shilimkar at ti.com
Wed Jan 30 04:10:15 EST 2013

On Tuesday 29 January 2013 10:54 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> * Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com> [130129 05:59]:
>> OK so we do managed to clean up the address space, IRQ lines
>> and DMA request lines data from hwmod completely.
>> -OMAP5 hwmod data file, 2076 lines we could remove which significant
>> reduction. I ran the same scripts on OMAP4 and there too about 2200
>> lines getting deleted.
> Great, thanks for looking into it. I guess we cannot do that quite
> yet for omap4 as we have not made it DT only. But we should be able
> to do that for am33xx as that's DT only already.
>> - I have to udapte DT file to add the all supported hwmods with reg
>> property so that OMAP5 continue to boot. Similar work is needed for
>> OMAP4 too once OMAP4 is made DT only support.
> OK
>> - To my suprise, the DT lookup isn't that bad. It is adding just
>> 24 milliseconds to the boot time which is more or less noise.
> That's good to hear.
>> Have pushed a branch with above update for OMAP5 here [1]
>> So we are left with two other topics which you mentioned in the
>> comments.
>> 1. Movement of clock data to drivers/clk. Till we get direction here
>> I would like to hear the alternative to get OMAP5 booting from mainline.
>> If there is no alternative, we can keep OMAP5 clock data alone
>> out of tree and get rest of the data files merged.
> I agree, no reason to hold back the other patches. But we should
> resolve the common clock move to drivers/clk properly now,
> otherwise it will just get postponed again and we have even bigger
> problem to deal with.
I will go ahead and separate the clock data from rest of the data
files so that we can get rest of the data patches in.

>> 2. The iormap() done by hwmod for sysconfig handling which you are
>> discussing with Rajendra. So far we don't have a viable way to
>> get the iormapped address from device drivers back to platform
>> code. Lets continue on this thread but this can evolve in
>> parallel.
> Yes that can be fixed separately.
Yep. Thanks for the comments.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list