On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 16:12:20 +0100
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 13/01/17 15:17, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:13:29 +0800
> > Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Add Mediatek nor flash node.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Guochun Mao <guochun.mao@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++
> >> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
> >> index 082ca88..85e5ae8 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
> >> @@ -24,6 +24,31 @@
> >> };
> >> };
> >>
> >> +&nor_flash {
> >> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> >> + pinctrl-0 = <&nor_pins_default>;
> >> + status = "okay";
> >> + flash@0 {
> >> + compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
> >> + reg = <0>;
> >> + };
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +&pio {
> >> + nor_pins_default: nor {
> >> + pins1 {
> >> + pinmux = <MT2701_PIN_240_EXT_XCS__FUNC_EXT_XCS>,
> >> + <MT2701_PIN_241_EXT_SCK__FUNC_EXT_SCK>,
> >> + <MT2701_PIN_239_EXT_SDIO0__FUNC_EXT_SDIO0>,
> >> + <MT2701_PIN_238_EXT_SDIO1__FUNC_EXT_SDIO1>,
> >> + <MT2701_PIN_237_EXT_SDIO2__FUNC_EXT_SDIO2>,
> >> + <MT2701_PIN_236_EXT_SDIO3__FUNC_EXT_SDIO3>;
> >> + drive-strength = <MTK_DRIVE_4mA>;
> >> + bias-pull-up;
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> &uart0 {
> >> status = "okay";
> >> };
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
> >> index bdf8954..1eefce4 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
> >> @@ -227,6 +227,18 @@
> >> status = "disabled";
> >> };
> >>
> >> + nor_flash: spi@11014000 {
> >> + compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor",
> >> + "mediatek,mt8173-nor";
> >
> > Why define both here? Is "mediatek,mt8173-nor" really providing a
> > subset of the features supported by "mediatek,mt2701-nor"?
> >
>
> I think even if the ip block is the same, we should provide both
> bindings, just in case in the future we find out that mt2701 has some
> hidden bug, feature or bug-feature. This way even if we update the
> driver, we stay compatible with older device tree blobs in the wild.
I'm fine with this approach, but in this case, defining both is wrong.
>
> We can drop the mt2701-nor in the bindings definition if you want.
Yes, please.
>
> Regards,
> Matthias
>
> >> + reg = <0 0x11014000 0 0xe0>;
> >> + clocks = <&pericfg CLK_PERI_FLASH>,
> >> + <&topckgen CLK_TOP_FLASH_SEL>;
> >> + clock-names = "spi", "sf";
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> + status = "disabled";
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> mmsys: syscon@14000000 {
> >> compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-mmsys", "syscon";
> >> reg = <0 0x14000000 0 0x1000>;
> >
--
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
