ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
There is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. Instead, imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware.
--- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi +2 -1
@@ -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 at 020f0000 {
Signature · 1 line
1.7.9.5
PATCH 1/1 ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
Hi Shawn,
Quoted 13 lines · Shawn Guo
There is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. Instead, imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware.
Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>--- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi +0
-0
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi line 623
Quoted 6 lines
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi +2
-1@@ -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
PATCH 1/1 ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
Quoted 11 lines · Luka Perkov
Hi Shawn,
Quoted 8 lines · Shawn Guo
There is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware. Instead, imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware.
Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>--- arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Quoted 15 lines
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi line 623
Quoted 11 lines
arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6sl.dtsi +2
-1@@ -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.dtsiandimx6qdl.dtsibecause 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.
Quoted 9 lines
$ 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.
Quoted 2 lines
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
PATCH 1/1 ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
Quoted 7 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 3 lines · Luka Perkov
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
PATCH 1/1 ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
Quoted 11 lines · Luka Perkov
Quoted 7 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 3 lines · Luka Perkov
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.
Quoted 4 lines
It could have been named "foobar" as far as I am concerned. But because it was named "sdma-imx6q.bin" in
imx6qdl.dtsierror was made when newimx6sl.dtsiwas created.
The error is there only because the author of imx6sl.dtsi (me) was not aware of there is no imx6sl specific sdma firmware.
Quoted 3 lines
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
PATCH 1/1 ARM: dts: imx6sl reuses imx6q sdma firmware
Quoted 7 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 3 lines
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