Am Donnerstag, 21. April 2016, 15:38:22 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> Hi,
>
> I didn't look as deeply as Heiko, but a few comments...
>
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Hi Jay,
> >
> > Am Donnerstag, 21. April 2016, 11:58:12 schrieb Jianqun Xu:
> >> This patch adds rk3399.dtsi for rk3399 found on Rockchip
> >> RK3399 SoCs, also add rk3399-evb.dts for Rockchip RK3399
> >> Evaluation Board.
> >>
> >> Patch is tested on RK3399 evb.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > please split this into
> > - patch adding the dtsi
> > - patch adding the evb dts
> > - patch adding the new board to bindings/arm/rockchip.txt
> >
> > more inline below
>
> Also don't forget to remove the controversial pmu bits for now (as
> discussed earlier) so this can land while all those kinks are being
> worked out.
>
> >> + sdhci: sdhci@fe330000 {
> >> + compatible = "arasan,sdhci-5.1";
> >
> > not 100% sure, but we might want a
> >
> > compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-sdhci-5.1",
> > "arasan,sdhci-5.1";
> >
> > allowing us to get more specific, if implementation oddities surface
> > later.
>
> I agree with Heiko. This sounds very sane to me, too, and matches
> previous discussions.
>
> >> + reg = <0x0 0xfe330000 0x0 0x10000>;
> >> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >> + clocks = <&cru SCLK_EMMC>, <&cru ACLK_EMMC>;
> >> + clock-names = "clk_xin", "clk_ahb";
> >> + phys = <&emmc_phy>;
> >> + phy-names = "phy_arasan";
> >> + status = "disabled";
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + usb2phy: usb2phy {
> >> + compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-usb-phy";
> >
> > this doesn't look like it got submitted yet.
> >
> > Also, the newer socs (rk3399. rk3036, rk3228) seem to use a different
> > usbphy block than rk3288 and before (with a big bunch of new phy-related
> > register blocks I haven't looked at yet) - so this should probably get a
> > new driver as well and not be crammed into the current phy driver, which
> > is for the older picophy (or what it was called).
> >
> >> + rockchip,grf = <&grf>;
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> +
> >> + usb2phy0: usb2-phy0 {
> >> + #phy-cells = <0>;
> >> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> >> + reg = <0xe458>;
> >> + };
> >
> > When we're doing a new driver, could we please get rid of these subnodes
> > and instead access phys via something like
> >
> > phys = <&usb2phy 0>;
>
> From what I recall during the submission of the previous PHY Kishon
> preferred the subnodes. I think I made a fool of myself in the last
> discussion about this because I reported bugs in my downstream kernel
> that didn't exist upstream, but if you want to read it you can see
> here:
>
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5474871/
>
> I believe patch v6 used IDs like Heiko is suggesting and it turned to
> subnodes in v7 based on Kishon's request. Since PHY code and bindings
> are Kishon's call, I have a feeling his opinion will trump here.
After Doug pointed me to that old discussion, I tend to agree - aka use sub-
nodes.
> >> +
> >> + usb2phy1: usb2-phy1 {
> >> + #phy-cells = <0>;
> >> + #clock-cells = <0>;
> >> + reg = <0xe468>;
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + usb_host0_echi: usb@fe380000 {
> >
> > not "echi" please :-)
>
> Just because it took me an extra reading to understand, he means turn
> "echi" to "ehci".
>
> >> + compatible = "generic-ehci";
> >> + reg = <0x0 0xfe380000 0x0 0x20000>;
> >> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 26 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> >> + clocks = <&cru HCLK_HOST0>, <&cru HCLK_HOST0_ARB>;
> >> + clock-names = "hclk_host0", "hclk_host0_arb";
> >> + phys = <&usb2phy0>;
> >> + phy-names = "usb2_phy0";
> >> + status = "disabled";
> >> + };
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> + usbdrd3_0: usb@fe800000 {
> >> + compatible = "rockchip,dwc3";
> >
> > is this in some tree already?
>
> I'm really surprised that there's not some generic fallback for
> "dwc3-of-simple.c". I would have expected:
> "rockchip,rk3399-dwc3", "synopsis,dwc3";
>
> ...but that doesn't appear to be in the bindings. Weird.
>
> >> + i2c1: i2c@ff110000 {
> >> + compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-i2c";
> >
> > David respun the rk3399 i2c-support on tuesday, so this and the others
> > below are waiting on Wolfram to take a look.
>
> I think it can work with the rk3288-i2c as a fallback, at least for
> low speed stuff, right? Should this be:
>
> compatible = "rockchip,rk3399-i2c", "rockchip,rk3288-i2c"
>
> Looks like that was done for rk3368.
The rk3368 has virtually the same ip blocks as the rk3288, so the i2c
controllers actually are the same. Not sure how true this is for the rk3399
though.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
