Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1281743 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 13:40 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-02 17:00 +0100
      Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 20:30 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 20:40 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-02 21:00 +0100
        Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-02 21:00 +0100
          Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 21:30 +0100
            Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> - 2015-12-02 21:40 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> - 2015-12-02 22:10 +0100
              Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-12-02 22:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch> - 2015-12-03 01:10 +0100

#1281743 — Re: [PATCH 0/5] ARM: orion5x/dove/mv78xx0 multiplatform

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:37:31PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> Hi Arnd,
>  
>  On mer., nov. 25 2015, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> 
> > I've posted these before and now gotten around to a rebase and
> > want to include them in the arm-soc next/multiplatform branch for
> > 4.5.
> >
> > Originally the plan for these platforms was to convert all of
> > them to DT and use only mach-mvebu. That has not happened,
> > so I would do it this way instead so we can at least have
> > them in a single kernel.
> >
> > Let me know if there are any concerns or objections.
> 
> I have applied all the patches on mvebu/oldmvebu_multiplatform (I fixed
> the last one which didn't apply on Kconfig). I also merged it
> mvebu/for-netx to be part of the linux-next.
> 
> But before making it part of mvebu/soc, I would like to get some
> Tested-by. The series is available on
> git://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu.git
> in the branch mvebu/oldmvebu_multiplatform but it also will be part soon
> of linux-next.
> 
> Russell, Sebastian,
> 
> would you have some time to test it on Dove?

Given that I'm testing on my Cubox tree, I've applied this series on top
of v4.3.  Patch 5 trivially conflicts on MMP context.  Fixing that and
merging the resulting changes gives another load of conflicts which need
dealing with:

Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/Kconfig'
Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/Kconfig'
Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/irq.c'
Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/pm.h'

These look less trivial to resolve, so testing this will have to wait
until I have sufficient time to sort this out.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1281950

On Wednesday 02 December 2015 12:33:10 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:37:31PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > Hi Arnd,
> >  
> >  On mer., nov. 25 2015, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > 
> > > I've posted these before and now gotten around to a rebase and
> > > want to include them in the arm-soc next/multiplatform branch for
> > > 4.5.
> > >
> > > Originally the plan for these platforms was to convert all of
> > > them to DT and use only mach-mvebu. That has not happened,
> > > so I would do it this way instead so we can at least have
> > > them in a single kernel.
> > >
> > > Let me know if there are any concerns or objections.
> > 
> > I have applied all the patches on mvebu/oldmvebu_multiplatform (I fixed
> > the last one which didn't apply on Kconfig). I also merged it
> > mvebu/for-netx to be part of the linux-next.
> > 
> > But before making it part of mvebu/soc, I would like to get some
> > Tested-by. The series is available on
> > git://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu.git
> > in the branch mvebu/oldmvebu_multiplatform but it also will be part soon
> > of linux-next.
> > 
> > Russell, Sebastian,
> > 
> > would you have some time to test it on Dove?
> 
> Given that I'm testing on my Cubox tree, I've applied this series on top
> of v4.3.  Patch 5 trivially conflicts on MMP context.  Fixing that and
> merging the resulting changes gives another load of conflicts which need
> dealing with:
> 
> Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/Kconfig'
> Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/Kconfig'
> Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/irq.c'
> Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/pm.h'
> 
> These look less trivial to resolve, so testing this will have to wait
> until I have sufficient time to sort this out.

I have pushed a rebased version to
git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git multiplatform-orion-4.3

Maybe that helps

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282290

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 04:49:38PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 December 2015 12:33:10 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 02:37:31PM +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> > > Hi Arnd,
> > >  
> > >  On mer., nov. 25 2015, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I've posted these before and now gotten around to a rebase and
> > > > want to include them in the arm-soc next/multiplatform branch for
> > > > 4.5.
> > > >
> > > > Originally the plan for these platforms was to convert all of
> > > > them to DT and use only mach-mvebu. That has not happened,
> > > > so I would do it this way instead so we can at least have
> > > > them in a single kernel.
> > > >
> > > > Let me know if there are any concerns or objections.
> > > 
> > > I have applied all the patches on mvebu/oldmvebu_multiplatform (I fixed
> > > the last one which didn't apply on Kconfig). I also merged it
> > > mvebu/for-netx to be part of the linux-next.
> > > 
> > > But before making it part of mvebu/soc, I would like to get some
> > > Tested-by. The series is available on
> > > git://git.infradead.org/linux-mvebu.git
> > > in the branch mvebu/oldmvebu_multiplatform but it also will be part soon
> > > of linux-next.
> > > 
> > > Russell, Sebastian,
> > > 
> > > would you have some time to test it on Dove?
> > 
> > Given that I'm testing on my Cubox tree, I've applied this series on top
> > of v4.3.  Patch 5 trivially conflicts on MMP context.  Fixing that and
> > merging the resulting changes gives another load of conflicts which need
> > dealing with:
> > 
> > Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/Kconfig'
> > Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/Kconfig'
> > Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/irq.c'
> > Recorded preimage for 'arch/arm/mach-dove/pm.h'
> > 
> > These look less trivial to resolve, so testing this will have to wait
> > until I have sufficient time to sort this out.
> 
> I have pushed a rebased version to
> git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git multiplatform-orion-4.3
> 
> Maybe that helps

As I said above, that's not the problem, the problem is merging it into
the rest of my tree.

Having done most of that merge, I'm now tripping up on:

arch/arm/mach-dove/common.c: In function 'dove_wdt_init':
arch/arm/mach-dove/common.c:538:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'orion_wdt_init' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]

which I guess is because you've deleted the legacy orion watchdog stuff.
So I'm going to have to revert that.  That then gives me:

arch/arm/mach-dove/clock.c:19:21: fatal error: mach/pm.h: No such file or directory
arch/arm/mach-dove/clock.c:20:27: fatal error: mach/hardware.h: No such file or directory

The first is easy to solve, and the second by replacing it with dove.h.
The next problem is this:

arch/arm/plat-orion/common.c:25:30: fatal error: mach/bridge-regs.h: No such file or directory

which is impossible to solve, because plat-orion/common.c wants
mach-dove/bridge-regs.h.

I also have arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/sdhci.h to pass the GPIO
for card detection to the SDHCI driver, which is going to break unless
it's moved to include/linux/platform-data.

Everything else seems mostly happy, but I've no way to tell whether
what would be the resulting kernel would work as it's impossible to
know without fixing the wreckage above.

I'm sure I don't have to repeat my position over what I'm going to do if
these petty mainline changes which are totally unnecessary break the only
setup I have which works.  Making mach-dove multi-platform is a "wouldn't
it be nice if", it's not an absolute necessity.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282300

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:28:25PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> The first is easy to solve, and the second by replacing it with dove.h.
> The next problem is this:
> 
> arch/arm/plat-orion/common.c:25:30: fatal error: mach/bridge-regs.h: No such file or directory
> 
> which is impossible to solve, because plat-orion/common.c wants
> mach-dove/bridge-regs.h.

Another few breakages which is going to be difficult to solve:

drivers/hwmon/dove.c:35:30: fatal error: mach/bridge-regs.h: No such file or directory

drivers/soc/dove/pmu.c: In function 'dove_init_pmu_legacy':
drivers/soc/dove/pmu.c:404:46: error: 'IRQ_DOVE_PMU_START' undeclared (first use in this function)
drivers/soc/dove/pmu.c:404:46: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in

So, all in all this series gets a NAK from me as it totally destroys
my ability to do any further work on Dove.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282319

On Wednesday 02 December 2015 19:37:08 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 07:28:25PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > The first is easy to solve, and the second by replacing it with dove.h.
> > The next problem is this:
> > 
> > arch/arm/plat-orion/common.c:25:30: fatal error: mach/bridge-regs.h: No such file or directory
> > 
> > which is impossible to solve, because plat-orion/common.c wants
> > mach-dove/bridge-regs.h.
> 
> Another few breakages which is going to be difficult to solve:
> 
> drivers/hwmon/dove.c:35:30: fatal error: mach/bridge-regs.h: No such file or directory
> 
> drivers/soc/dove/pmu.c: In function 'dove_init_pmu_legacy':
> drivers/soc/dove/pmu.c:404:46: error: 'IRQ_DOVE_PMU_START' undeclared (first use in this function)
> drivers/soc/dove/pmu.c:404:46: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> 
> So, all in all this series gets a NAK from me as it totally destroys
> my ability to do any further work on Dove.
> 

Ok, I'll try to take out the dove specific parts that get in the way here
but would still do the whole series for mv78xx0 and orion5x unless someone
finds problems.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282317

On Wednesday 02 December 2015 19:28:25 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 
> As I said above, that's not the problem, the problem is merging it into
> the rest of my tree.
> 
> Having done most of that merge, I'm now tripping up on:
> 
> arch/arm/mach-dove/common.c: In function 'dove_wdt_init':
> arch/arm/mach-dove/common.c:538:2: error: implicit declaration of function 'orion_wdt_init' [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> 
> which I guess is because you've deleted the legacy orion watchdog stuff.
> So I'm going to have to revert that.  That then gives me:
> 
> arch/arm/mach-dove/clock.c:19:21: fatal error: mach/pm.h: No such file or directory
> arch/arm/mach-dove/clock.c:20:27: fatal error: mach/hardware.h: No such file or directory
> 
> The first is easy to solve, and the second by replacing it with dove.h.
> The next problem is this:
> 
> arch/arm/plat-orion/common.c:25:30: fatal error: mach/bridge-regs.h: No such file or directory
> 
> which is impossible to solve, because plat-orion/common.c wants
> mach-dove/bridge-regs.h.

Ok, I can try to work around that, either by duplicating the device definition,
or passing the address into orion_wdt_init.

> I also have arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/sdhci.h to pass the GPIO
> for card detection to the SDHCI driver, which is going to break unless
> it's moved to include/linux/platform-data.

Right, a platform_data file seems the right approach there. Possibly just
passing the gpio number by casting it to a pointer, though that's a bit
ugly.

> Everything else seems mostly happy, but I've no way to tell whether
> what would be the resulting kernel would work as it's impossible to
> know without fixing the wreckage above.
> 
> I'm sure I don't have to repeat my position over what I'm going to do if
> these petty mainline changes which are totally unnecessary break the only
> setup I have which works.  Making mach-dove multi-platform is a "wouldn't
> it be nice if", it's not an absolute necessity.

I'm mostly interested in it because it's the only ARMv7 platform that is
left after my other patches, and I just want to be done with it after
spending 5 years on it ;-)

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282347

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:51:04PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I'm mostly interested in it because it's the only ARMv7 platform that is
> left after my other patches, and I just want to be done with it after
> spending 5 years on it ;-)

My understanding is that the long term goal is to delete mach-dove once
everyone has settled down into the mvebu DT world.

Right now we have mvebu which covers Dove using DT.  We have mach-dove
which is legacy non-DT Dove.

It seems to me to be completely crazy to want to bring legacy code, which
is ultimately destined to be deleted, into multiplatform.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282358

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:22:40PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:51:04PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > I'm mostly interested in it because it's the only ARMv7 platform that is
> > left after my other patches, and I just want to be done with it after
> > spending 5 years on it ;-)
> 
> My understanding is that the long term goal is to delete mach-dove once
> everyone has settled down into the mvebu DT world.
> 
> Right now we have mvebu which covers Dove using DT.  We have mach-dove
> which is legacy non-DT Dove.
> 
> It seems to me to be completely crazy to want to bring legacy code, which
> is ultimately destined to be deleted, into multiplatform.

I agree. We have multiplatform dove already, it is in mach-mvebu. Do
we really need both mach-dove and mach-mvebu dove in one kernel?

   Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282399

On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:38:10PM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> I agree. We have multiplatform dove already, it is in mach-mvebu. Do
> we really need both mach-dove and mach-mvebu dove in one kernel?

Only to support my efforts in adding further Dove support.  As you
know, we've recently added PMU support, and I've recently sent you
patches for the remaining clocks.  Both of those are laying the
foundations for the next big piece, which is support for the GPU
on Dove.

Most of the effort that's been going on recently has been for the GPU
support has been invisible to most people, because much of that is
around hammering out the DRM API for it, and getting the thing stable.
This is a bigger project than just Dove, other SoCs also have the same
GPU family in them, even having multiple separate GPU cores.  It's
taken a lot of effort and time to hammer this out between three people
Lucas, Christian, and myself.

Some of the problems are only visible using the graphics stack which
I have: xf86-video-armada (which is 2D GPU accelerated for any of these
GPUs which support it) vs Christian's MESA (which obviously uses the 3D
GPU.)  On Dove, it's fairly simple, because the GPU core there is a
combined 2D/3D affair, but iMX6 has separate cores, so I've had to come
up with a way to synchronise between the cores (which obviously can have
an effect on the user API, and therefore must be resolved prior to the
initial submission.)

The mach-dove code is key to my involvement with this.

So, please realise that things have been _real_ busy on Dove, even though
you have not seen much from me: that'll be quite normal when most of the
effort is going on outside of something being Dove platform specific.

What Lucas and myself have been working towards since 4.2 is to get the
kernel GPU driver into a state where we can get it merged: we've had the
DRM people review it, and they've provided feedback.  It's taken a long
time to work through that feedback, which included totally ripping out
the existing locking and replacing it with a completely new locking scheme
- which is never an easy thing to do.  (Lucas had a few goes, I also had a
few goes, and eventually we ended up with something that is fairly sane but
has one very hairy place which was difficult to solve.)

Getting this sorted so I can then drop the galcore chunk of code out of
my dove tree will be a major step forwards for me, and will allow me to
eliminate the reason that I've not been willing to publish the tree in
full (because, despite galcore being a supposedly open source kernel
driver which lots of people - including companies - seem happy to
distribute, there is at least one file in it which do not carry the open
source boilerplate, but instead carry a more restrictive license, which
as far as I'm concerned makes me unable to publish this code.)

Talking about publishing... I do wonder what use that would be.  A while
back, people were asking me to publish it, and I arranged to publish as
much as I could, which included BMM, vmeta, PMU and other associated
components.  The result of that came to nothing at all, except a more
complicated git tree for me to manage which has added to my workload, and
thus slowed me down more...  in hind sight, I don't know why I bothered.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282419

On Wednesday 02 December 2015 21:38:10 Andrew Lunn wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:22:40PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 08:51:04PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > I'm mostly interested in it because it's the only ARMv7 platform that is
> > > left after my other patches, and I just want to be done with it after
> > > spending 5 years on it 
> > 
> > My understanding is that the long term goal is to delete mach-dove once
> > everyone has settled down into the mvebu DT world.
> > 
> > Right now we have mvebu which covers Dove using DT.  We have mach-dove
> > which is legacy non-DT Dove.
> > 
> > It seems to me to be completely crazy to want to bring legacy code, which
> > is ultimately destined to be deleted, into multiplatform.
> 
> I agree. We have multiplatform dove already, it is in mach-mvebu. Do
> we really need both mach-dove and mach-mvebu dove in one kernel?

I'm also fine with deleting mach-dove, but that would be much more
disruptive to Russell's work, so I don't think that helps anyone.

I've rebased the series to leave out the last two patches for dove,
and added the watchdog on dove, so I can at least get the other
patches out of my queue if that works for now.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1282614

> > I agree. We have multiplatform dove already, it is in mach-mvebu. Do
> > we really need both mach-dove and mach-mvebu dove in one kernel?
> 
> I'm also fine with deleting mach-dove.

Ah, maybe i worded that badly. By "in one kernel" i mean kernel
binary. We should keep mach-dove, and allow a mach-dove build of the
kernel. But there is no reason for that build to be multi-platform. We
already have multi-platform dove via mvebu.

Anyway, i see your v2 patches do leave mach-dove as a single platform
kernel.

	Andrew
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web