On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 15:35 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hello Dennis, > > On 7/1/21 2:59 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 11:31 +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > On 7/1/21 2:40 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > > > Without the usbdrd_dwc3_1 node defined u-boot will throw an > > > > error > > > > and > > > > reset the system. > > > > > > I wonder if this should better be fixed in u-boot then?! > > > > > > > All other rk3399 systems use this format > > > > > > This is true for the dwc nodes, however for the usb2 nodes there > > > are > > > several that use this idiom (and even repeat the label name), see > > > for > > > example the &u2phy0 node in > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-rockpro64.dtsi . > > > > > > > looking at that file is where I got the idea to set it up as I have > > proposed, it follows the format I have submitted > > I guess you didn't read exactly what I wrote and only looked at > &usbdrd* > but not &u2phy0. Hi Uwe, I did read what you pointed at, the issue is that is already defined in arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi and all that is needed it to set the status to okay and minor enablement. as DTC merges all the snippets together they end up in the right place and doing the right thing, the approach you took is different to all the other boards I looked at and seemingly causes issues in u-boot. I did not get far enough in booting to verify the state in linux as I am updating u-boot as I go and testing using u-boots dtb for simplicty sake. It quite likely is a bug in u-boot that it resets the system, at the same time I do not think that doing it differently to how the other boards are implemented is right either. There is still a lot of the hardware in the system that is not defined in the devicetree file, including a lot of the usb stack. Dennis
