On 5/19/23 6:34 AM, Nitin Yadav wrote:
Add sa3_secproxy node in k3-am62-main.dtsi to keep device tree
nodes in sync with u-boot nodes.
That is not a good reason, nodes should be added because the device
exists and should be described. Simply say that here.
Signed-off-by: Nitin Yadav <n-yadav@xxxxxx>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi
index b3e4857bbbe4..7c2af5b0e022 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am62-main.dtsi
@@ -42,6 +42,15 @@ gic_its: msi-controller@1820000 {
};
};
+ sa3_secproxy: secproxy@44880000 {
+ compatible = "ti,am654-secure-proxy";
The "ti,am654-secure-proxy" binding has interrupts as a required
property, so this will cause new binding check warnings.
We also already have a Secure Proxy instance in this DT, why
do we need this other one? Is this the instance that was added
for for the R5 use? I guess that would explain why there are no
interrupts to the big ARM core.. Can we actually use this
node in Linux then? If not mark it disabled/reserved.
Andrew
+ #mbox-cells = <1>;
+ reg-names = "rt", "scfg", "target_data";
+ reg = <0x00 0x44880000 0x00 0x20000>,
+ <0x0 0x44860000 0x0 0x20000>,
+ <0x0 0x43600000 0x0 0x10000>;
+ };
+
main_conf: syscon@100000 {
compatible = "syscon", "simple-mfd";
reg = <0x00 0x00100000 0x00 0x20000>;
