Hi Fabio,
Am 05.07.2016 um 14:04 schrieb Fabio Estevam:
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:04 AM, Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> +/dts-v1/;
>> +
>> +#include "imx6sx-udoo-neo.dtsi"
>> +
>> +/ {
>> + model = "UDOO Neo Basic";
>
> This should be something like:
>
> model = "Udoo i.MX6 SoloX UDOO Neo Basic";
Why should anyone use such a weird concatenation of names? If you wanted
"UDOO Neo Basic (based on i.MX 6SoloX)" that would be more
understandable, but there is no UDOO Neo Basic board with another SoC:
http://www.udoo.org/udoo-neo/
imx6dl-udoo.dts uses "Udoo i.MX6 Dual-lite Board" and
imx6q-udoo.dts uses "Udoo i.MX6 Quad Board".
So I'm open to discussing UDOO vs. Udoo spelling, but I don't see a
requirement for mixing board vendor, SoC name and board name.
/proc/cpuinfo displays "Freescale i.MX6 SoloX (Device Tree)" based on
SoC compatible string and mach-imx/mach-imx6sx.c.
Note that NXP calls it "i.MX6SX" or "i.MX 6SoloX" (spacing):
http://www.nxp.com/products/microcontrollers-and-processors/arm-processors/i.mx-applications-processors/i.mx-6-processors/i.mx6qp/i.mx-6solox-processors-heterogeneous-processing-with-arm-cortex-a9-and-cortex-m4-cores:i.MX6SX
>> + compatible = "fsl,imx6sx";
>
> compatible = "udoo,imx6sx-udoo-neo", "fsl,imx6sx";
>
> Then you can also send a separate patch to add udoo to
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.txt.
>
> Same applies to other places in this patch.
I know we could add compatibles. But you say it backwards: If I add a
compatible string the vendor _must_ be defined in vendor-prefixes.txt
and the board compatible _must_ be documented, too. Since I saw that
there is no prefix for UDOO in vendor-prefixes.txt nor an arm/udoo.txt
file to document its board compatibles _despite_ "udoo,imx6q-udoo" and
"udoo,imx6dl-udoo" being in use, as an annoyed UDOO Neo owner I'd rather
leave it to UDOO to add those on their own as follow-up if they care.
Their downstream kernel does not have such a compatible string, they use
"fsl,imx6sx-sdb", which looks like a bad case of copy&paste to me.
However, "udoo,neo-basic", "udoo,neo", "fsl,imx6sx" should be sufficient
since unlike the Quad/Dual situation there is no SoC variation here. Or
"seco,udoo-neo"? "udoo,udoo-neo" looks duplicate.
>> +&fec1 {
>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_enet1>;
>> + phy-mode = "rmii";
>> + phy-reset-gpios = <&gpio5 4 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
>
> Shouldn't this be GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW instead?
Hm, network worked okay for me like this, how do we verify?
Schematics are here: http://www.udoo.org/other-resources/
Thanks,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
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
