On 27/11/2023 10:23, Tim Lunn wrote:
> Hi
>
> On 11/27/23 17:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/11/2023 00:06, Heiko Stübner wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> Am Mittwoch, 22. November 2023, 13:29:47 CET schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>>>> On 22/11/2023 13:22, Tim Lunn wrote:
>>>>> Add i2c2 node and i2c2_xfer pinctrl for Rockchip RV1126
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Tim Lunn <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> (no changes since v1)
>>>>>
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126-pinctrl.dtsi | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126.dtsi | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126-pinctrl.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126-pinctrl.dtsi
>>>>> index 4f85b7b3fc4c..167a48afa3a4 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126-pinctrl.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126-pinctrl.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -87,6 +87,16 @@ i2c0_xfer: i2c0-xfer {
>>>>> <0 RK_PB5 1 &pcfg_pull_none_drv_level_0_smt>;
>>>>> };
>>>>> };
>>>>> + i2c2 {
>>>>> + /omit-if-no-ref/
>>>>> + i2c2_xfer: i2c2-xfer {
>>>>> + rockchip,pins =
>>>>> + /* i2c2_scl */
>>>>> + <0 RK_PC2 1 &pcfg_pull_none_drv_level_0_smt>,
>>>>> + /* i2c2_sda */
>>>>> + <0 RK_PC3 1 &pcfg_pull_none_drv_level_0_smt>;
>>>>> + };
>>>>> + };
>>>>> pwm2 {
>>>>> /omit-if-no-ref/
>>>>> pwm2m0_pins: pwm2m0-pins {
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126.dtsi
>>>>> index 6c5c928f06c7..cf1df75df418 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/rockchip/rv1126.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ / {
>>>>>
>>>>> aliases {
>>>>> i2c0 = &i2c0;
>>>>> + i2c2 = &i2c2;
>>>> No, this should be per-board to match board labeling/schematics.
>>> At least for i2c, uarts and i.e. spi ... Rockchip manuals, pin namings
>>> and also all board schematics I've seen so far are very consistent for
>>> these ... i2c2 for example is labled i2c2 both in the pins in the socs
>>> and also in the board-schematics using them.
>>>
>>> So while I can agree that things like mmc-aliases might be board-specific,
>>> I do think aliases for the core busses should be able to live in the soc dtsi
>>> as for all Rockchip SoCs so far?
>> If you do not list here all aliases, it is already board-specific, isn't it?
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-rockchip/CAK8P3a25iYksubCnQb1-e5yj=crEsK37RB9Hn4ZGZMwcVVrG7g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> I had only added aliases for nodes that are implemented. RV1126 has 6
> i2c busses but so far not all these exist in the soc.dtsi.
>
OK, that would explain why you have only two. Anyway, it is just generic
guideline, so up to Heiko what to do with it.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
