Re: [PATCH v6 4/6] arm64: dts: qcom: sm6125: Add UFS nodes

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

 




On 09/01/2023 09:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:

On 8.01.2023 20:53, Lux Aliaga wrote:
Adds a UFS host controller node and its corresponding PHY to
the sm6125 platform.

Signed-off-by: Lux Aliaga <they@xxxxxxxxx>
---
  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
index df5453fcf2b9..cec7071d5279 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
@@ -511,6 +511,63 @@ sdhc_2: mmc@4784000 {
  			status = "disabled";
  		};
+ ufs_mem_hc: ufs@4804000 {
+			compatible = "qcom,sm6125-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0";
+			reg = <0x04804000 0x3000>, <0x04810000 0x8000>;
You need reg-names for ICE to probe, otherwise the second reg sits unused.

+			interrupts = <GIC_SPI 356 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+			phys = <&ufs_mem_phy>;
+			phy-names = "ufsphy";
+			lanes-per-direction = <1>;
+			#reset-cells = <1>;
+			resets = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_BCR>;
+			reset-names = "rst";
+			iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x200 0x0>;
+
+			clock-names = "core_clk",
+				      "bus_aggr_clk",
+				      "iface_clk",
+				      "core_clk_unipro",
+				      "ref_clk",
+				      "tx_lane0_sync_clk",
+				      "rx_lane0_sync_clk",
+				      "ice_core_clk";
+			clocks = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
+				 <&gcc GCC_SYS_NOC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
+				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AHB_CLK>,
+				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_UNIPRO_CORE_CLK>,
+				 <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>,
+				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_TX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>,
+				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_RX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>,
+				 <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_ICE_CORE_CLK>;
+			freq-table-hz = <50000000 240000000>,
+					<0 0>,
+					<0 0>,
+					<37500000 150000000>,
+					<0 0>,
+					<0 0>,
+					<0 0>,
+					<75000000 300000000>;
+
+			status = "disabled";
+		};
+
+		ufs_mem_phy: phy@4807000 {
+			compatible = "qcom,sm6125-qmp-ufs-phy";
+			reg = <0x04807000 0x1c4>;
Isn't this too small? Downstream says 0xdb8, but it's probably even bigger..
What do you think could help me find the new length of the registers? I tried 0x1000 and it probed just fine, but I'm not really sure until what extent I could push it.

--
Lux Aliaga
https://nixgoat.me/




[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