On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 09:00:42PM +0200, Clément Péron wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:34, Clément Péron <peron.clem@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Allwinner H6 has a r_watchdog similar to A64.
> >
> > Declare it in the device-tree.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <peron.clem@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi
> > index 5c2f5451227b..66dc684a378e 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi
> > @@ -622,6 +622,13 @@
> > #reset-cells = <1>;
> > };
> >
> > + r_watchdog: watchdog@7020400 {
> > + compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-a64-wdt",
> > + "allwinner,sun6i-a31-wdt";
> > + reg = <0x07020400 0x20>;
> > + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 103 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> > + };
>
> I have set the same compatible as A64 because regarding the User
> Manual they have exactly the same memory mapping.
> However we don't know really if it's the same IP version, maybe there
> will be an errata one day.
> So I would like to know if it's better to define the h6-wdt also
> compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-h6-wdt", "allwinner,sun50i-a64-wdt",
> "allwinner,sun6i-a31-wdt";
>
> I would say Yes, but with this logic we would have to had a new
> compatible each time there is a new SoC.
Why not just having the A31 compatible?
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
