On 07.03.2022 14:04, Michael Walle wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
> content is safe
>
> Am 2022-03-07 12:53, schrieb Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>> 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.
>>
>> From software point of view comparing registers should be good, as far
>> as I
>> can tell. All AT91 datasheet should be available. I though you have
>> checked
>> one against LAN966. At the moment I don't have a DS for LAN966. I'll
>> find
>> one and have a look.
>
> So my train of thought was like: even if the registers are the same I
> cannot be sure that it is the exact same IP and will behave the same.
> Therefore, it is something only microchip can answer.
>
> You can find the registers at
> https://microchip-ung.github.io/lan9668_reginfo/reginfo_LAN9668.html
>
> I'm not aware of any "classic" datasheet.
You can find all AT91 datasheet on Microchip web site [1].
Simple register comparison b/w register mapping at [2] and SAMA5D2
datasheet [3] (which uses the same compatible), SAM9X60 datasheet [3] and
SAMA7G5 datasheet (not public at the moment) brings up a difference at
register FLEX_US_CR (bits 16, 17) which are not available on SAMA5D2,
SAM9X60 or SAMA7G5. Unless this is a mistake on documentation at [2] I say
it needs a new compatible.
Kavya, could you confirm this?
Thank you,
Claudiu Beznea
[1] https://www.microchip.com/
[2] https://microchip-ung.github.io/lan9668_reginfo/reginfo_LAN9668.html
[3] http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/devicedoc/ds60001476b.pdf#G22.2193277
[4]
https://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/aemDocuments/documents/MPU32/ProductDocuments/DataSheets/SAM9X60-Data-Sheet-DS60001579E.pdf
>
> -michael
