Hi,
Am 12.10.18 um 12:23 schrieb Aleksandr Aleksandrov:
> Emlid Neutis N5 is a SoM based on Allwinner H5, has a WiFi & BT
> module, DDR3 RAM and eMMC.
>
> - add neutis n5 dtsi file for SoM needs
> - add neutis devboard dts file
> - add neutis devboard target to dtb makefile
>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksandr Aleksandrov <aleksandr.aleksandrov@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 1 +
> .../sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5-devboard.dts | 147 +++++++++++++++++++++
> .../dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5.dtsi | 59 +++++++++
> 3 files changed, 207 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5-devboard.dts
> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5.dtsi
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile
> index 9ffa7a0..eefe74c 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-a64-pine64-plus.dtb sun50i-a64-pine64.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-a64-pinebook.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-a64-sopine-baseboard.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-a64-teres-i.dtb
> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5-devboard.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h5-libretech-all-h3-cc.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h5-nanopi-neo2.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h5-nanopi-neo-plus2.dtb
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5-devboard.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5-devboard.dts
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..1086029
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5-devboard.dts
> @@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR X11)
Note that the new SPDX identifier would be "GPL-2.0-or-later", but both
are still valid.
I stumbled over "X11", should that be "MIT" instead?
Also, is this combined comment style of SPDX + copyright acceptable?
Same nits in the .dtsi file.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2018 Aleksandr Aleksandrov <aleksandr.aleksandrov@xxxxxxxxx>
> + */
> +
> +/dts-v1/;
> +
> +#include "sun50i-h5-emlid-neutis-n5.dtsi"
> +
> +/ {
> + model = "Emlid Neutis N5 Developer board";
> + compatible = "emlid,neutis-n5-devboard",
> + "emlid,neutis-n5",
You are lacking bindings definitions for these new identifiers. The
vendor prefix should be patch 1/3, the SoM/board compatibles 2/3 and
this .dts[i] patch 3/3, so that only vendor prefixes and compatibles
that are defined and don't result in checkpatch.pl warnings get used.
One more nit below...
> + "allwinner,sun50i-h5";
[...]
> +&de {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ehci0 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ehci1 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ehci2 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ehci3 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ohci0 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ohci1 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ohci2 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ohci3 {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
'o' is out of alphabetical order here.
Otherwise looks okay to me.
Regards,
Andreas
> +
> +&emac {
> + phy-handle = <&int_mii_phy>;
> + phy-mode = "mii";
> + allwinner,leds-active-low;
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&hdmi {
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&hdmi_out {
> + hdmi_out_con: endpoint {
> + remote-endpoint = <&hdmi_con_in>;
> + };
> +};
> +
> +&mmc0 {
> + vmmc-supply = <®_vcc3v3>;
> + bus-width = <4>;
> + cd-gpios = <&pio 5 6 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* PF6 */
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&uart0 {
> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> + pinctrl-0 = <&uart0_pins_a>;
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&usb_otg {
> + dr_mode = "otg";
> + status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&usbphy {
> + usb0_id_det-gpios = <&r_pio 0 8 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; /* PL8 */
> + usb0_vbus-supply = <®_usb0_vbus>;
> + status = "okay";
> +};
[snip]
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
