| Message ID | 1376903386-27771-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Shawn, On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:09:46PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > There is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. Instead, imx6sl reuses > imx6q sdma firmware. > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi > index c46651e..9fec772 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi > @@ -619,7 +619,8 @@ > <&clks IMX6SL_CLK_SDMA>; > clock-names = "ipg", "ahb"; > #dma-cells = <3>; > - fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6sl.bin"; > + /* imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware */ > + fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6q.bin"; As you may have noticed my patch changes both imx6sl.dtsi and imx6qdl.dtsi because of the naming convention used in other sdma firmwares: $ fgrep sdma-ram-script-name arch/arm/boot arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6q.bin"; arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6sl.bin"; arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx51.bin"; arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx53.bin"; Also, last patch containing sdma firmware blobs sent to the mailing list [1] uses "sdma-imx6.bin" name. That is why I think patch I have sent recently [2] is more appropriate. Don't you think so? Luka [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-January/143025.html [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-August/191108.html
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote: > Hi Shawn, > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:09:46PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > There is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. Instead, imx6sl reuses > > imx6q sdma firmware. > > > > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> > > --- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi > > index c46651e..9fec772 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi > > @@ -619,7 +619,8 @@ > > <&clks IMX6SL_CLK_SDMA>; > > clock-names = "ipg", "ahb"; > > #dma-cells = <3>; > > - fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6sl.bin"; > > + /* imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware */ > > + fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6q.bin"; > > As you may have noticed my patch changes both imx6sl.dtsi and > imx6qdl.dtsi because of the naming convention used in other sdma > firmwares: The convention is to use SoC name to specify the firmware for particular SoC. imx6 is not a SoC name. Sure, sdma-imx6sl.bin is incorrect since there is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. Instead, it reuses imx6q one. > > $ fgrep sdma-ram-script-name arch/arm/boot > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6qdl.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6q.bin"; > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6sl.bin"; > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx51.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx51.bin"; > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx53.dtsi: fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx53.bin"; > > Also, last patch containing sdma firmware blobs sent to the mailing list > [1] uses "sdma-imx6.bin" name. The patch never got merged. I do not like the name, simply because imx6 is not a SoC name. > That is why I think patch I have sent > recently [2] is more appropriate. Don't you think so? No, I do not think so, and that's why I sent my version with you on Cc. Shawn > [1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-January/143025.html > [2] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-August/191108.html
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:53:17PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:09:46PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Also, last patch containing sdma firmware blobs sent to the mailing list > > [1] uses "sdma-imx6.bin" name. > > The patch never got merged. I do not like the name, simply because imx6 > is not a SoC name. IMHO "sdma-imx6.bin" is much more descriptive then "sdma-imx6q.bin" in this case. It could have been named "foobar" as far as I am concerned. But because it was named "sdma-imx6q.bin" in imx6qdl.dtsi error was made when new imx6sl.dtsi was created. Naming it "sdma-imx6.bin" or "sdma-imx6x.bin" would help avoiding confusions in the future (despite it's not SoC name). Luka
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:28:27PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 09:53:17PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:35:42PM +0200, Luka Perkov wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 05:09:46PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > > Also, last patch containing sdma firmware blobs sent to the mailing list > > > [1] uses "sdma-imx6.bin" name. > > > > The patch never got merged. I do not like the name, simply because imx6 > > is not a SoC name. > > IMHO "sdma-imx6.bin" is much more descriptive then "sdma-imx6q.bin" in > this case. I take it opposite. "sdma-imx6q.bin" tells that the firmware is created for imx6q and gets reused on imx6sl, while "sdma-imx6.bin" tells nothing about that compatibility info. > > It could have been named "foobar" as far as I am concerned. But because > it was named "sdma-imx6q.bin" in imx6qdl.dtsi error was made when new > imx6sl.dtsi was created. The error is there only because the author of imx6sl.dtsi (me) was not aware of there is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. > Naming it "sdma-imx6.bin" or "sdma-imx6x.bin" > would help avoiding confusions in the future (despite it's not SoC > name). Just for example, if the next imx6 SoC uses a different sdma firmware, I guess "sdma-imx6.bin" or "sdma-imx6x.bin" would become the source of confusion. Shawn
On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 02:25:58PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote: > > Naming it "sdma-imx6.bin" or "sdma-imx6x.bin" > > would help avoiding confusions in the future (despite it's not SoC > > name). > > Just for example, if the next imx6 SoC uses a different sdma firmware, > I guess "sdma-imx6.bin" or "sdma-imx6x.bin" would become the source > of confusion. Ok, agreed :) Luka
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi index c46651e..9fec772 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi @@ -619,7 +619,8 @@ <&clks IMX6SL_CLK_SDMA>; clock-names = "ipg", "ahb"; #dma-cells = <3>; - fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6sl.bin"; + /* imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware */ + fsl,sdma-ram-script-name = "imx/sdma/sdma-imx6q.bin"; }; pxp: pxp@020f0000 {
There is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. Instead, imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware. Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)