[PATCH 2/2] ARM: mvebu: Added dts defintion for Lenovo Iomega ix4-300d NAS

[Jason Cooper]

Benoit,

Please try to avoid top-posting.  I've re-flowed it, below.

Arnd, Andrew, question for both of you below.

On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 03:40:42PM +0200, Benoit Masson wrote:
> Le 24 juil. 2014 à 14:45, Jason Cooper <jason at lakedaemon.net> a écrit :
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:21:03PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> >> On 24/07/2014 01:15, Jason Cooper wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:11:12AM +0200, Benoit Masson wrote:
> >>>> Le 24 juil. 2014 à 00:58, Andrew Lunn <andrew at lunn.ch> a écrit :
> >>>> 
> >>>>>> For the marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c unfortunately i've spend 3 hours
> >>>>>> trying to understand this but it only works with this on the
> >>>>>> ix4-300d :(. There was multiple patch around this and maybe one
> >>>>>> broke the auto-detect part of this, I've tried compiling with some
> >>>>>> 3.10 or lower kernel but no luck here I still have to put this a0
> >>>>>> option.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> Lets first confirm you have an a0 SoC.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> At boot time, it should print:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> pr_info("MVEBU SoC ID=0x%X, Rev=0x%X\n", soc_dev_id, soc_rev);
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> What revision do you have?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> If the auto detect code really is broken, Gregory will likely take a
> >>>>> look.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I sure do,
> >>>> 
> >>>> confirmed by u-boot  output below:
> >>>> 
> >>>> U-Boot 2009.08 (Mar 04 2013 - 11:13:04) Marvell version:  2.3.2 PQ
> >>>> U-Boot Addressing:
> >>>>       Code:..00600000:006BFFF0
> >>>>       BSS:..00708EC0
> >>>>       Stack:..0x5fff70
> >>>>       PageTable:.0x8e0000
> >>>>       Heap address:.0x900000:0xe00000
> >>>> Board: DB-78230-BP rev 2.0 Wistron
> >>>> SoC:   MV78230 A0
> >>>> 
> >>>> From kernel I get:
> >>>> 
> >>>> mvebu-soc-id: MVEBU SoC ID=0x7823, Rev=0x1
> >>> 
> >>> Well, isn't that a peach?  :)  Gregory?
> >> 
> >> A peach?? For me it is either a fruit or a princess, so I am puzzled!
> > 
> > Doc Holiday quote from the movie Tombstone.  The full quote was "Well,
> > isn't that a peach of a hand?" while sitting at the poker table.
> > 
> >> Well about the issue, we patch the device tree for the i2c quirk only for
> >> the openblock AX3.
> > 
> > Ahhh, that's right.  I need to slow down and dig a bit more. :(

^^^^^ This is the important bit.

> > 
> >> If I remember well it was because the device tree was already written
> >> for this board before we found there was an issue with the A0 version
> >> of the CPU. 
> > 
> > No, it's because we didn't think any manufacturers would be silly enough
> > to use the a0 in production.  That assumption worked out well. :-P
> > 
> >> The rule was that for new boards then they have to set the marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c
> >> compatible string. I also didn't expect that we found "new" product using the A0 version.
> >> 
> >> We have 3 options now:
> >> 
> >> - remove the check on the openblock AX3 board and always try to apply the quirck for A0 version
> >> - add a check for this new board in the mvebu_dt_init function
> >> - let the compatible string marvell,mv78230-a0-i2c in this dts
> >> 
> >> I would prefer the option 1 but I fear that Arnd would prefer the 2 other options.
> > 
> > I like option 1 and 3.  Option 3 is a *correct* description of the
> > hardware, and should be done.  Option 1 makes Linux user-friendly for boards
> > that are exactly the same, but changed out SoC stepping mid-production.
> > 
> > Option 2 needs to be undone.  We shouldn't need to change compiled code
> > for every new board that comes along.  Which was the whole point of DT,
> > right?
> > 
> So I'm a bit puzzled now. First email from Jason mention that the
> final patch was doe in 3.16rc3 and indeed I made my dts using 3.15,
> now I'm on 3.16 mainline, but didn't tested since to remove the a0
> compatible string. Should I give it a try or from Gregory's email
> understand that the patch was only for ax3 board ?

Ignore what I said before about the patch.  It doesn't apply to your
board.  We need to fix the quirk to trigger on SoC revision, not board
compatible, as it currently does.

The only outstanding point (Arnd?), is that I think it's ok to have the
i2c...a0 compatible string in the dts files, but Andrew seems to think
otherwise.  Is that still true Andrew?

> Feel free as long as the device is still opened, uart connected, to
> send me your test as I'll soon have to turn into a production NAS ...

Hopefully, we'll hear from one of them today, and we can merge your
patch as-is with the minor comment reformatting.

thx,

Jason.