Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek: > On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 03.12.2014 um 09:39 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> On 12/02/2014 05:07 PM, Soren Brinkmann wrote: >>>> Add USB nodes to zc702, zc706 and zed device trees. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> v3: >>>> - rename phy nodes: usb_phy -> phy0 >>>> - rebased onto zynq/dt >>>> v2: >>>> - remove '@0' from phy node name >>>> - don't add bogus space >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts | 11 +++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+) >> [...] >>> >>> Applied to zynq/dt. >> >> Hm, I don't see this patch in linux-next next-20150123... >> >> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to >> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: >> >> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >> f090e100 op: f090e140 >> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >> f0910100 op: f0910140 >> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >> >> Am I missing any other patches or config options? >> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug >> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) > > Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? No, happened without as well. Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' property of node '/phy0[0]' [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' property of node '/phy0[0]' [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' property of node '/phy1[0]' [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' property of node '/phy1[0]' [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified? Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
