在 2017-04-20 13:58，Maxime Ripard 写道：
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:56:43PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
于 2017年4月18日 GMT+08:00 下午3:00:16, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 写到:
>On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 07:57:37PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> Allwinner A64 SoC features a NMI controller, which is usually
>connected
>> to the AXP PMIC.
>>
>> Add support for it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@xxxxxxx>
>> Acked-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Added Chen-Yu's ACK.
>>
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi | 8 ++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
>b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
>> index 05ec9fc5e81f..53c18ca372ea 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a64.dtsi
>> @@ -403,6 +403,14 @@
>> <GIC_SPI 41 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> };
>>
>> + nmi_intc: interrupt-controller@01f00c0c {
>> + compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-sc-nmi";
>> + interrupt-controller;
>> + #interrupt-cells = <2>;
>> + reg = <0x01f00c0c 0x38>;
>
>The base address is not correct, and there's uncertainty on whether
>this is this particular controller or not. Did you even test this?
Tested by axp20x-pek.
Still, the base address is wrong, which is yet another hint that this
is not the same interrupt controller, and just works by accident.
No, it's the same as other post-sun6i device trees.
See other post-sun6i device trees: (or maybe they're all wrong, but
as we have no document for it, we should temporarily keep them)
sun6i-a31.dtsi
```
nmi_intc: interrupt-controller@01f00c0c {
compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-sc-nmi";
interrupt-controller;
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
reg = <0x01f00c0c 0x38>;
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 32 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
};
```
sun8i-a23-a33.dtsi
```
nmi_intc: interrupt-controller@01f00c0c {
compatible = "allwinner,sun6i-a31-sc-nmi";
interrupt-controller;
#interrupt-cells = <2>;
reg = <0x01f00c0c 0x38>;
interrupts = <GIC_SPI 32 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
};
```
But according to the BSP device tree, the base address should be
0x01f00c00. Should I send some patch to fix all of them? (but it will
break device tree compatibility)
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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
