On Fri 23 Mar 03:18 PDT 2018, Sricharan R wrote:
> @@ -172,6 +180,22 @@
> clock-names = "core", "iface";
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 5>, <&blsp_dma 4>;
> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
> + status = "disabled";
> + };
> +
> + spi_1: spi@78b6000 { /* BLSP1 QUP2 */
> + compatible = "qcom,spi-qup-v2.2.1";
> + reg = <0x78b6000 0x600>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 96 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_QUP2_SPI_APPS_CLK>,
> + <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_AHB_CLK>;
> + clock-names = "core", "iface";
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 7>, <&blsp_dma 6>;
> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
> status = "disabled";
> };
>
> @@ -184,9 +208,24 @@
> clock-names = "iface", "core";
> #address-cells = <1>;
> #size-cells = <0>;
> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 9>, <&blsp_dma 8>;
> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
> status = "disabled";
> };
>
> + i2c_1: i2c@78b8000 { /* BLSP1 QUP4 */
The label, comment and the core clock disagrees on which qup this is.
Label your nodes based on the SoC naming, not your board - as this will
prevent a future board from using e.g. blsp1 qup2 as i2c (as you already
used the label for that).
> + compatible = "qcom,i2c-qup-v2.2.1";
> + reg = <0x78b8000 0x600>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 98 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_AHB_CLK>,
> + <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_QUP2_I2C_APPS_CLK>;
QUP4?
> + clock-names = "iface", "core";
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 11>, <&blsp_dma 10>;
> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
> + status = "disabled";
> + };
Apart from this the patch looks good.
Regards,
Bjorn
--
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
