[RFC 4/7] ARM: dts: add support for Vybrid running on Cortex-M4

[Stefan Agner]

Am 2014-10-13 13:24, schrieb Arnd Bergmann:
> On Monday 13 October 2014 13:08:12 Stefan Agner wrote:
>> Am 2014-10-13 12:32, schrieb Mark Rutland:
>> > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 07:13:58PM +0100, Stefan Agner wrote:
>> >> This adds an initial device tree to run Linux on the Cortex-M4 on
>> >> Vybrid.
>> >>
>> >> HACK: Because we include armv7-m.dtsi, the soc node happens to
>> >> be before the clock node. This is a problem for vf610-clk.c, which
>> >> tries to optain the fixed clocks defined in the clock nodes. But
>> >> because clock drivers are initialized sequencially, and we do not
>> >> have support for deferred probing, the clock initialization fails
>> >> horrible.
>> >> Move the armv7-m.dtsi include to the bottom to temporarily work
>> >> work around this...
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Stefan Agner <stefan at agner.ch>
>> >> ---
>> >> Maybe a dummy soc entry in armv7-m.dtsi also helps here. But a
>> >> hack as well. Is it common acceptable that the kernel depends
>> >> on DTS order?
>> >
>> > The kernel should not depend on DTS ordering. We should sort out
>> > deferred probing if there is an issue with it.
>> >
>> > [...]
>>
>> Yes I guess to make this working independent of device tree order, we
>> need to defer probing of vf610-clk when the fixed clocks are not
>> initialized yet.
>>
>> Clock initialization (using CLK_OF_DECLARE) doesn't support EPROBE_DEFER
>> currently.
>>
>> We seem to have already a work around merged because of this.
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1635576
> 
> Ah, maybe that's what I remembered. The clock handling should probably
> do something similar to what we do for irqchips, where we probe the
> parents first.
> 

Would parent really work here? I mean, vf610-"clk"'s parent is
"aips-bus", then "soc" versus "fxosc"'s parent is "clock" (which I can
omit according to Mark), so different branches starting from the root. A
depth based initialization order would help, but this looks rather
arbitrary.

>> Anybody tried to reverse device tree parsing to unveil how many such
>> assumptions are still slumbering?
> 
> Not that I'm aware of. Sounds like a good thing to try.
> 
>> >> +
>> >> +    soc {
>> >> +            aips0: aips-bus at 40000000 {
>> >> +                    compatible = "fsl,aips-bus", "simple-bus";
>> >> +                    #address-cells = <1>;
>> >> +                    #size-cells = <1>;
>> >> +                    reg = <0x40000000 0x70000>;
>> >
>> > Out of curiosity, given that this can be driven as a simple-bus, what do
>> > the aips bus registers allow to be configured?
>> >
>>
>> There is a chapter about the AIPS lite bus in the RM, but according to
>> this the AIPS lite bus itself has no registers by itself.
> 
> I just noticed that the only child you list below this node uses
> registers within the area of the bus. I suspect you just confused
> 'reg' and 'ranges' here, please use 'ranges' to list which registers
> are visible on the bus, and modify the 'reg' properties of the children
> as necessary.

Oh yes, these seems wrong. I copied this from the vf610.dtsi, but when
we make one common file we can fix it for all then.

--
Stefan