ARM: OMAP: TI814X: Create board support and enable build for TI8148 EVM

This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM. Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM.

Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c.

Signed-off-by Hemant Pedanekar <[email protected]>

---
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig                        |    5 ++++
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile                       |    3 +-
 .../{board-ti8168evm.c => board-ti81xxevm.c}       |   22 ++++++++++++++-----
 arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h       |    3 ++
 4 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
 rename arch/arm/mach-omap2/{board-ti8168evm.c => board-ti81xxevm.c} (66%)

arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig +5 -0

index a3b9227..cc4f213 100644
@@ -316,6 +316,11 @@ config MACH_TI8168EVM
 	depends on SOC_OMAPTI81XX
 	default y
 
+config MACH_TI8148EVM
+	bool "TI8148 Evaluation Module"
+	depends on SOC_OMAPTI81XX
+	default y
+
 config MACH_OMAP_4430SDP
 	bool "OMAP 4430 SDP board"
 	default y

arch/arm/mach-omap2/Makefile +2 -1

index 5ee4cd6..1dc2c6b 100644
@@ -239,7 +239,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_OMAP3517EVM)		+= board-am3517evm.o \
 obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_CRANEBOARD)		+= board-am3517crane.o
 
 obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_SBC3530)		+= board-omap3stalker.o
-obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_TI8168EVM)		+= board-ti8168evm.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_TI8168EVM)		+= board-ti81xxevm.o
+obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_TI8148EVM)		+= board-ti81xxevm.o
 
 # Platform specific device init code
 

arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti81xxevm.c renamed from arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti8168evm.c +16 -6

similarity index 66%
rename from arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti8168evm.c
rename to arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-ti81xxevm.c
index 7935fc9..b858921 100644
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 /*
- * Code for TI8168 EVM.
+ * Code for TI8168/TI8148 EVM.
  *
  * Copyright (C) 2010 Texas Instruments, Inc. - http://www.ti.com/
  *

@@ -24,15 +24,15 @@
 #include <plat/board.h>
 #include <plat/common.h>
 
-static struct omap_board_config_kernel ti8168_evm_config[] __initdata = {
+static struct omap_board_config_kernel ti81xx_evm_config[] __initdata = {
 };
 
-static void __init ti8168_evm_init(void)
+static void __init ti81xx_evm_init(void)
 {
 	omap_serial_init();
 	omap_sdrc_init(NULL, NULL);
-	omap_board_config = ti8168_evm_config;
-	omap_board_config_size = ARRAY_SIZE(ti8168_evm_config);
+	omap_board_config = ti81xx_evm_config;
+	omap_board_config_size = ARRAY_SIZE(ti81xx_evm_config);
 }
 
 MACHINE_START(TI8168EVM, "ti8168evm")

@@ -42,5 +42,15 @@ MACHINE_START(TI8168EVM, "ti8168evm")
 	.init_early	= ti81xx_init_early,
 	.init_irq	= ti81xx_init_irq,
 	.timer		= &omap3_timer,
-	.init_machine	= ti8168_evm_init,
+	.init_machine	= ti81xx_evm_init,
+MACHINE_END
+
+MACHINE_START(TI8148EVM, "ti8148evm")
+	/* Maintainer: Texas Instruments */
+	.atag_offset	= 0x100,
+	.map_io		= ti81xx_map_io,
+	.init_early	= ti81xx_init_early,
+	.init_irq	= ti81xx_init_irq,
+	.timer		= &omap3_timer,
+	.init_machine	= ti81xx_evm_init,
 MACHINE_END

arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/uncompress.h +3 -0

index 40336ad..8d052e7 100644
@@ -175,6 +175,9 @@ static inline void __arch_decomp_setup(unsigned long arch_id)
 		/* TI8168 base boards using UART3 */
 		DEBUG_LL_TI81XX(3, ti8168evm);
 
+		/* TI8148 base boards using UART1 */
+		DEBUG_LL_TI81XX(1, ti8148evm);
+
 	} while (0);
 }
 

Hi Hemant,

Quoted 3 lines · Hemant Pedanekar

This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM. Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM.

Quoted 2 lines

Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c.

Should we really rename the existing file?
Shouldn't we just stick to the name of the file submitted first? (e.g. board-ti8168evm.c) and just add the support for the new TI8148 EVM in to the existing file?

Because, I don't see any real necessity in renaming that file. Also, it will spare the changes in Makefile.

Hi Igor,

Igor Grinberg wrote on Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:38 PM:

Quoted 9 lines

Hi Hemant,

Quoted 5 lines · Hemant Pedanekar

This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM. Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM.

Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c.

Quoted 4 lines

Should we really rename the existing file?
Shouldn't we just stick to the name of the file submitted first? (e.g. board-ti8168evm.c) and just add the support for the new TI8148 EVM in to the existing file?

But won't this be misleading?

Quoted 13 lines

Hi Igor,

Igor Grinberg wrote on Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:38 PM:

Quoted 9 lines

Hi Hemant,

Quoted 5 lines · Hemant Pedanekar

This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM. Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM.

Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Should we really rename the existing file?
Shouldn't we just stick to the name of the file submitted first? (e.g. board-ti8168evm.c) and just add the support for the new TI8148 EVM in to the existing file?

But won't this be misleading?

Misleading? For whom?
Actually, I don't really care how you call that file. What I care (and I think not just me) is uniformity, so if we decide to rename all those files that have multiple boards supported in them, I'm fine with it.

So pros for my proposed approach would be:
1) Currently, there are already board files with multiple boards supported in them that follow the approach and renaming them is
really unnecessary. 2) git log will not break.
3) boards that cannot be named after the convention like 81xx but can be added to the same file will not require further renaming (like 82x8 - I don't really know if that will exist, just wondering).
4) This renaming is really what Linus likes ;)

cons:
1) Misleading?

Currently, I don't think this renaming is good for anything, especially that majority of the board stuff should be transformed to the DT descriptors.

Igor Grinberg wrote on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:31 PM:

Quoted 36 lines · Hemant

Quoted 13 lines

Hi Igor,

Igor Grinberg wrote on Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:38 PM:

Quoted 9 lines

Hi Hemant,

Quoted 5 lines · Hemant Pedanekar

This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM. Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM.

Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Should we really rename the existing file?
Shouldn't we just stick to the name of the file submitted first? (e.g. board-ti8168evm.c) and just add the support for the new TI8148 EVM in to the existing file?

But won't this be misleading?

Misleading? For whom?
Actually, I don't really care how you call that file. What I care (and I think not just me) is uniformity, so if we decide to rename all those files that have multiple boards supported in them, I'm fine with it.

So pros for my proposed approach would be:
1) Currently, there are already board files with multiple boards supported in them that follow the approach and renaming them is
really unnecessary. 2) git log will not break.
3) boards that cannot be named after the convention like 81xx but can be added to the same file will not require further renaming (like 82x8 - I don't really know if that will exist, just wondering).
4) This renaming is really what Linus likes ;)

Quoted 6 lines

cons:
1) Misleading?

Currently, I don't think this renaming is good for anything, especially that majority of the board stuff should be transformed to the DT descriptors.

Igor,
I agree on the DT part and also understand the "pros" you mentioned.

I can submit the v4 of patches with TI8148 EVM support added in exisitng board-ti8168evm.c.

Tony,
Are you OK with the above approach?

Quoted 45 lines

Igor Grinberg wrote on Tuesday, October 04, 2011 2:31 PM:

Quoted 36 lines · Hemant

Quoted 13 lines

Hi Igor,

Igor Grinberg wrote on Sunday, October 02, 2011 5:38 PM:

Quoted 9 lines

Hi Hemant,

Quoted 5 lines · Hemant Pedanekar

This patch adds minimal support and build configuration for TI8148 EVM. Also adds support for low level debugging on UART1 console on the EVM.

Note that existing TI8168 EVM file (board-ti8168evm.c) is updated with machine info for TI8148 EVM and renamed as board-ti81xxevm.c.

Quoted 6 lines

Quoted 4 lines

Should we really rename the existing file?
Shouldn't we just stick to the name of the file submitted first? (e.g. board-ti8168evm.c) and just add the support for the new TI8148 EVM in to the existing file?

But won't this be misleading?

Misleading? For whom?
Actually, I don't really care how you call that file. What I care (and I think not just me) is uniformity, so if we decide to rename all those files that have multiple boards supported in them, I'm fine with it.

So pros for my proposed approach would be:
1) Currently, there are already board files with multiple boards supported in them that follow the approach and renaming them is
really unnecessary. 2) git log will not break.
3) boards that cannot be named after the convention like 81xx but can be added to the same file will not require further renaming (like 82x8 - I don't really know if that will exist, just wondering).
4) This renaming is really what Linus likes ;)

Quoted 6 lines

cons:
1) Misleading?

Currently, I don't think this renaming is good for anything, especially that majority of the board stuff should be transformed to the DT descriptors.

Quoted 8 lines

Igor,
I agree on the DT part and also understand the "pros" you mentioned.

I can submit the v4 of patches with TI8148 EVM support added in exisitng board-ti8168evm.c.

Tony,
Are you OK with the above approach?

Yes, let's not do renaming unless it's really needed. We'll be getting rid of the board-*.c files anyways with device tree. So let's consider the board-*.c files to be in minimal maintenance mode until they will eventually get removed.

Regards,

Tony