Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] ARM: dts: lan966x: add all flexcom usart nodes

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04.03.2022 13:01, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
> 
> Hi,
> 
> thanks for the quick review.
> 
> Am 2022-03-04 09:30, schrieb Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> On 03.03.2022 18:03, Michael Walle wrote:
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know
>>> the content is safe
>>>
>>> Add all the usart nodes for the flexcom block. There was already
>>> an usart node for the flexcom3 block. But it missed the DMA
>>> channels.
>>
>> And it would be good to go though a different patch.
> 
> sure
> 
>>> Although the DMA channels are specified, DMA is not
>>> enabled by default because break detection doesn't work with DMA.
>>>
>>> Keep the nodes disabled by default.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 55
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
>>> index a7d46a2ca058..bea69b6d2749 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi
>>> @@ -92,6 +92,19 @@ flx0: flexcom@e0040000 {
>>>                         #size-cells = <1>;
>>>                         ranges = <0x0 0xe0040000 0x800>;
>>>                         status = "disabled";
>>> +
>>> +                       usart0: serial@200 {
>>> +                               compatible =
>>> "atmel,at91sam9260-usart";
>>
>> Are the usart blocks in lan966x 1:1 compatible with what is is sam9260?
>> In
>> case not it may worth to have a new compatible here, for lan966x, such
>> that
>> when new features will be implemented in usart driver for lan966x the
>> old
>> DT (this one) will work with the new kernel implementation.
> 
> During my review of the inital dtsi patch, I've asked the same question
> [1]
> and I was told they are the same.
> 
> At least this exact usart compatible is already in this file. I was
> under
> the impression, that was the least controversial compatible :)

OK.

> 
> But you'll need to tell me if they are the same or not, I don't have
> any clue what microchip has reused. 


[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux