Am 2022-03-18 13:17, schrieb Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
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.
I can't follow you here. These bits are already used in the current UART
driver and are supported on the LAN966X. So if anything, SAMA5D2,
SAM9X60
and SAMA7G5 need a new compatible, no?
-michael
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
