Skip to contentSkip to conversation

ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

PATCH New Troy Kisky 7 participants 22 messages Jul 9, 2011 – Jul 21, 2011

Subsystems (3)
Arm (32-bit) Arm sub-architectures Arm i.MX and Layerscape
lore
Share & tools
lore

Troy Kisky

author
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>
---
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    9 ++++++++-
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +8 -1
index 8e8d175..3919ad4 100644
@@ -37,13 +37,20 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX3x_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX51
 #ifdef UART_PADDR
 #error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
 #endif
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+
 #define UART_VADDR	IMX_IO_ADDRESS(UART_PADDR)
 
 		.macro	addruart, rp, rv
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
#1 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

Quoted 3 lines · Troy Kisky

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>
Acked-by Amit Kucheria <[email protected]>

but I think we should switch to runtime detection of the machine (machine ID?) and then set the port address.

See arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h for a possible scheme.

Quoted 33 lines
---
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    9 ++++++++-
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +8 -1
index 8e8d175..3919ad4 100644
@@ -37,13 +37,20 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX3x_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX51
 #ifdef UART_PADDR
 #error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
 #endif
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+
 #define UART_VADDR	IMX_IO_ADDRESS(UART_PADDR)
 
 		.macro	addruart, rp, rv
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
Signature · 3 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || amit.kucheria at canonical.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#2 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

Quoted 11 lines · Amit Kucheria
Quoted 3 lines · Troy Kisky

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>
Acked-by Amit Kucheria <[email protected]>

but I think we should switch to runtime detection of the machine (machine ID?) and then set the port address.

See arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h for a possible scheme.

mach/debug-macro.S and mach/uncompress.h are two different things. And the uncompress stuff is dynamic for mxc AFAIK.

Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
---
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    9 ++++++++-
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +1 -1
index 8e8d175..3919ad4 100644
@@ -37,13 +37,20 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX3x_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX51
 #ifdef UART_PADDR
 #error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
 #endif
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
Quoted 7 lines

arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S line 53

Quoted 7 lines
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +7 -0
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+

Hm, even though it's obvious, maybe add a comment that MX50_UART1_BASE_ADDR is identical to MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR?

Best regards
Uwe

Signature · 2 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
#3 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

Quoted 6 lines · Uwe Kleine-K?nig
Quoted 5 lines · Amit Kucheria
Quoted 3 lines · Troy Kisky

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Acked-by Amit Kucheria <[email protected]>

but I think we should switch to runtime detection of the machine (machine ID?) and then set the port address.

See arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h for a possible scheme.

mach/debug-macro.S and mach/uncompress.h are two different things. And the uncompress stuff is dynamic for mxc AFAIK.

Indeed they're different. But it seems to me that arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/debug-macro.S and arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h show clearly how we can deal with the serial port addresses (for DEBUG_LL) dynamically. No?

Quoted 30 lines
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 20 lines
---
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    9 ++++++++-
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +1 -1
index 8e8d175..3919ad4 100644
@@ -37,13 +37,20 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX3x_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX51
 #ifdef UART_PADDR
 #error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
 #endif
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
Quoted 7 lines

arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S line 53

Quoted 7 lines
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +7 -0
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+

Hm, even though it's obvious, maybe add a comment that MX50_UART1_BASE_ADDR is identical to MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR?

Signature · 3 lines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Amit Kucheria, Kernel Engineer || amit.kucheria at canonical.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
#4 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

Quoted 12 lines · Amit Kucheria
Quoted 11 lines · Uwe Kleine-K?nig
Quoted 10 lines · Amit Kucheria
Quoted 3 lines · Troy Kisky

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>
Acked-by Amit Kucheria <[email protected]>

but I think we should switch to runtime detection of the machine (machine ID?) and then set the port address.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line

See arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h for a possible scheme.

mach/debug-macro.S and mach/uncompress.h are two different things. And the uncompress stuff is dynamic for mxc AFAIK.

Indeed they're different. But it seems to me that arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/debug-macro.S and arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h show clearly how we can deal with the serial port addresses (for DEBUG_LL) dynamically. No?

Looking at arch/arm/mach-omap2/include/mach/debug-macro.S it doesn't look easy. And considering that debug-macro.S is only needed for early board bringup, it's totally OK to have hardcoded values for only a single SOC at a time in it. And I really like to keep this simple as it is the first working debug mechanism during boot.

Best regards
Uwe

Signature · 2 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
maintainer
#5 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

In reply to Troy Kisky

Troy,

Quoted 3 lines · Troy Kisky

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

Please rebase the patch on my for-next branch and use CONFIG_SOC_IMX* instead of CONFIG_ARCH_*.

Sascha

Quoted 34 lines
---
 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    9 ++++++++-
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +8 -1
index 8e8d175..3919ad4 100644
@@ -37,13 +37,20 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX3x_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
+#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX51
 #ifdef UART_PADDR
 #error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
 #endif
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
+#if defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX50) || defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+
 #define UART_VADDR	IMX_IO_ADDRESS(UART_PADDR)
 
 		.macro	addruart, rp, rv
Signature · 1 line
1.7.0.4
Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
author
#6 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

Quoted 13 lines · Sascha Hauer

Troy,

Quoted 3 lines · Troy Kisky

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

Please rebase the patch on my for-next branch and use CONFIG_SOC_IMX* instead of CONFIG_ARCH_*.

Sascha

Quoted 1 line

---

maintainer
#7 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 ARM: i.MX50/53: debug-macro: fix UART_PADDR

Quoted 15 lines · Troy Kisky
Quoted 13 lines · Sascha Hauer

Troy,

Quoted 3 lines · Troy Kisky

The i.MX51 UART_PADDR value does not work for MX50/53.

Signed-off-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

Please rebase the patch on my for-next branch and use CONFIG_SOC_IMX* instead of CONFIG_ARCH_*.

Sascha

Quoted 1 line

---

Quoted 7 lines

From arch/arm/mach-mx5/Kconfig

# ARCH_MX5/50/53 are left to mark places where prevent multi-soc in single

# image. So for most time, SOC_IMX50/51/53 should be used.

So, it would seem to me that the ARCH variant would be correct.

No, we want to get rid of CONFIG_ARCH_MX*. The debug macro stuff is a bit special as we intentionally disable multi soc kernels for the low level debug case.

Sascha

Signature · 4 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
#8 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

In reply to Troy Kisky

The UART_PADDR definition for i.mx53 and i.mx50 is missing in debug-macro.S. It causes the build of i.mx53/50 fail.

Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Reported-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

---
Troy,

Since I'm keen to get the build failure fixed, I just repost the patch you sent with Sascha's comment fixed. Hope you do not mind.

 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    8 ++++++++
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +8 -0
index 91fc7cd..8cf8dee 100644
@@ -44,6 +44,14 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
 
+#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX50) || defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+/* i.MX50 gets the same UART1 base address as i.MX53 */
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+
 #define UART_VADDR	IMX_IO_ADDRESS(UART_PADDR)
 
 		.macro	addruart, rp, rv
Signature · 1 line
1.7.4.1
#9 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 11 lines · Shawn Guo

The UART_PADDR definition for i.mx53 and i.mx50 is missing in debug-macro.S. It causes the build of i.mx53/50 fail.

Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Reported-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

---
Troy,

Since I'm keen to get the build failure fixed, I just repost the patch you sent with Sascha's comment fixed. Hope you do not mind.

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

Signature · 9 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110720/3ce61987/attachment.sig>
#10 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 9 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 8 lines · Shawn Guo

The UART_PADDR definition for i.mx53 and i.mx50 is missing in debug-macro.S. It causes the build of i.mx53/50 fail.

Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Reported-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

---
Troy,

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Since I'm keen to get the build failure fixed, I just repost the patch you sent with Sascha's comment fixed. Hope you do not mind.

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Shawn
#11 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top of.

Signature · 9 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110720/72b15bdd/attachment.sig>
#12 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 11 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top of.

So you are telling you are not following the list closely?

http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.network/200918

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Shawn
#13 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 8 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 7 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines

Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top of.

So you are telling you are not following the list closely?

If "following closely" == "reading every single mail", then surely not. Why?

Signature · 9 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110720/fa5ceddc/attachment.sig>
#14 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 9 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 8 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 7 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines

Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top of.

So you are telling you are not following the list closely?

If "following closely" == "reading every single mail", then surely not. Why?

Well, not really. But since you are co-maintaining i.mx, I *thought* you may have read the mail with "i.mx" in the subject. It seems not the case, apparently.

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Shawn
#15 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 14 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 13 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 12 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 11 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top of.

Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line

So you are telling you are not following the list closely?

If "following closely" == "reading every single mail", then surely not. Why?

Well, not really. But since you are co-maintaining i.mx, I *thought* you may have read the mail with "i.mx" in the subject. It seems not the case, apparently.

? I don't get the relevance to the topic, sorry.

If the new patch is different enough to be considered new, Troy could indeed request his SoB to be removed. If his patch is mainly improved, I do still wonder if he could request his SoB to be removed. That is possibly a gray area, but as I said before, it really doesn't matter for this patch and is not worth the fuzz here. Let's just go back to hacking :)

Signature · 9 lines
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110720/063da325/attachment.sig>
author
#16 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

In reply to Wolfram Sang
Quoted 9 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 8 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 7 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines

Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top of.

So you are telling you are not following the list closely?

If "following closely" == "reading every single mail", then surely not. Why?

Shawn,

The reason I requested to change to reported-by on the FEC patch was because your patch was extremely different from mine and you deserved to be listed as the author, not me.

For this, both patches are tiny. And since I still think that CONFIG_ARCH_MX53 is more appropriate than CONFIG_SOC_IMX53, I am also fine with a reported-by. Though your commit message could be better. It is a run time problem, not compile-time.

Thanks for your efforts.

Troy

#17 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 26 lines · Troy Kisky
Quoted 9 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 8 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 7 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

I did exactly what you suggested here on a mx53 fec patch, but I was told by Troy to change his s-o-b to reported-by. So let's see what he would say about this one.

Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 4 lines

Okay, not much of a deal for such a patch. Though, I have doubts if one can request removing the SoB for a patch other people put work on top of.

So you are telling you are not following the list closely?

If "following closely" == "reading every single mail", then surely not. Why?

Shawn,

The reason I requested to change to reported-by on the FEC patch was because your patch was extremely different from mine and you deserved to be listed as the author, not me.

Quoted 5 lines

For this, both patches are tiny. And since I still think that CONFIG_ARCH_MX53 is more appropriate than CONFIG_SOC_IMX53, I am also fine with a reported-by. Though your commit message could be better. It is a run time problem, not compile-time.

No. It is a compile-time problem. The reason we see difference there is because I based off linux-next (essentially linux-arm-soc/next <- Sascha's 'devel' branch), while you probably based off Sascha's for-next branch.

Sascha,

You forgot to apply the following patch on your for-next branch?

commit fad107086d5a869c1c07e5bb35b7b57a10ecf578

Author: Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>
Date:   Thu May 19 17:25:05 2011 +0200

ARM i.MX debug macro: use CONFIG_SOC_* instead of CONFIG_ARCH_*

CONFIG_ARCH_* are deprecated, so remove one user.

Signed-off-by Sascha Hauer <[email protected]>

I think you still need to keep your for-next branch as a bleeding-edge for i.mx since people base their i.mx works off there.

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Shawn
#18 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

In reply to Wolfram Sang
Quoted 9 lines · Wolfram Sang
Quoted 8 lines · Shawn Guo

The UART_PADDR definition for i.mx53 and i.mx50 is missing in debug-macro.S. It causes the build of i.mx53/50 fail.

Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Reported-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

---
Troy,

Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines

Since I'm keen to get the build failure fixed, I just repost the patch you sent with Sascha's comment fixed. Hope you do not mind.

Then you should at least add his Signed-off. And maybe also mark him as the author of the patch?

Actually, I was just building the imx53 and making the fix (I hope you agree I do not need to steal Troy's code for such a quick and easy fix), and then recall there is a patch already on the list.

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Shawn
author
#19 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

In reply to Shawn Guo
Quoted 21 lines · Shawn Guo

The UART_PADDR definition for i.mx53 and i.mx50 is missing in debug-macro.S. It causes the build of i.mx53/50 fail.

Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Reported-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

---
Troy,

Since I'm keen to get the build failure fixed, I just repost the patch you sent with Sascha's comment fixed. Hope you do not mind.

 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    8 ++++++++
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +0 -0
index 91fc7cd..8cf8dee 100644
@@ -44,6 +44,14 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR

arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S line 54

Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +8 -0
 #endif
 
+#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX50) || defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+/* i.MX50 gets the same UART1 base address as i.MX53 */
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+

If your debug-macro.S is like mine then you should have

#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
#ifdef UART_PADDR
#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs" #endif
#define UART_PADDR MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
#endif

So, all MX5's are using MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR.
I can't see that your patch changes CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
to CONFIG_SOC_IMX51. It isn't functionally the same as my version.

Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +0 -0
 #define UART_VADDR	IMX_IO_ADDRESS(UART_PADDR)
 
 		.macro	addruart, rp, rv
#20 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 24 lines · Troy Kisky
Quoted 23 lines · Shawn Guo

The UART_PADDR definition for i.mx53 and i.mx50 is missing in debug-macro.S. It causes the build of i.mx53/50 fail.

Signed-off-by Shawn Guo <[email protected]>
Reported-by Troy Kisky <[email protected]>

---
Troy,

Since I'm keen to get the build failure fixed, I just repost the patch you sent with Sascha's comment fixed. Hope you do not mind.

 arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S |    8 ++++++++
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +0 -0
index 91fc7cd..8cf8dee 100644
@@ -44,6 +44,14 @@
 #define UART_PADDR	MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
 #endif
Quoted 11 lines

arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S line 54

Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm/plat-mxc/include/mach/debug-macro.S +8 -0
+#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX50) || defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX53)
+#ifdef UART_PADDR
+#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs"
+#endif
+/* i.MX50 gets the same UART1 base address as i.MX53 */
+#define UART_PADDR	MX53_UART1_BASE_ADDR
+#endif
+

If your debug-macro.S is like mine then you should have

No, it is not.

Quoted 8 lines

#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
#ifdef UART_PADDR
#error "CONFIG_DEBUG_LL is incompatible with multiple archs" #endif
#define UART_PADDR MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR
#endif

Quoted 4 lines

So, all MX5's are using MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR.
I can't see that your patch changes CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
to CONFIG_SOC_IMX51. It isn't functionally the same as my version.

We started from the difference base. No, it is not functionally the same as yours, so even remove your reported-by? :)

Signature · 2 lines
Regards,
Shawn
author
#21 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 arm/mxc: add the missing UART_PADDR for i.mx53

Quoted 10 lines · Shawn Guo
Quoted 6 lines · Troy Kisky

On 7/20/2011 6:13 AM, Shawn Guo wrote:

So, all MX5's are using MX51_UART1_BASE_ADDR.
I can't see that your patch changes CONFIG_ARCH_MX5
to CONFIG_SOC_IMX51. It isn't functionally the same as my version.

We started from the difference base. No, it is not functionally the same as yours, so even remove your reported-by? :)

Thanks for the explanation. You'll get no complaints from me. Do as you like.

Troy