On 25/04/2024 11:15, Niko Pasaloukos wrote:
> Adds support for the Blaize CB2 development board based on
> BLZP1600 SoC. This consists of a Carrier-Board-2 and a SoM.
Subject: missing dts prefix.
...
> +
> +/ {
> + interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
> + #address-cells = <2>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> + cpus {
> + #address-cells = <2>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> + cpu0: cpu@0 {
> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53";
> + device_type = "cpu";
> + enable-method = "psci";
> + reg = <0x0 0x0>;
> + next-level-cache = <&l2>;
> + };
> +
> + cpu1: cpu@1 {
> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53";
> + device_type = "cpu";
> + enable-method = "psci";
> + reg = <0x0 0x1>;
> + next-level-cache = <&l2>;
> + };
> +
> + l2: l2-cache0 {
> + compatible = "cache";
> + cache-level = <2>;
> + cache-unified;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + timer {
> + compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
> + interrupts = /* Physical Secure PPI */
> + <GIC_PPI 13 (GIC_CPU_MASK_RAW(0x3) |
> + IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
> + /* Physical Non-Secure PPI */
> + <GIC_PPI 14 (GIC_CPU_MASK_RAW(0x3) |
> + IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
> + /* Hypervisor PPI */
> + <GIC_PPI 10 (GIC_CPU_MASK_RAW(0x3) |
> + IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
> + /* Virtual PPI */
> + <GIC_PPI 11 (GIC_CPU_MASK_RAW(0x3) |
> + IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>;
> + };
> +
> + psci {
> + compatible = "arm,psci-1.0", "arm,psci-0.2";
> + method = "smc";
> + };
> +
> + pmu {
Nodes in top-level look randomly ordered. Any reason why not using DTS
coding style in this regard?
> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 76 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
> + <GIC_SPI 77 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> + interrupt-affinity = <&cpu0>, <&cpu1>;
> + };
> +
> + sram@0 {
> + /*
> + * On BLZP1600 there is no general purpose (non-secure) SRAM.
> + * A small DDR memory space has been reserved for general use.
> + */
> + compatible = "mmio-sram";
> + reg = <0x0 0x00000000 0x00001000>;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + ranges = <0 0x0 0x00000000 0x1000>;
ranges follow reg
> +
> + /* SCMI reserved buffer space on DDR space */
> + scmi0_shm: scmi-sram@800 {
> + compatible = "arm,scmi-shmem";
> + reg = <0x800 0x80>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> + firmware {
> + scmi {
> + compatible = "arm,scmi-smc";
> + arm,smc-id = <0x82002000>;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> +
> + shmem = <&scmi0_shm>;
> +
> + scmi_clk: protocol@14 {
> + reg = <0x14>;
> + #clock-cells = <1>;
> + };
> +
> + scmi_rst: protocol@16 {
> + reg = <0x16>;
> + #reset-cells = <1>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> +
> + soc {
This does not cause dtbs_check W=1 warnings? Surprising a bit... This
should cause big fat warning, so I have doubts patchset was tested.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
