Hello Krzysztof,
On 20/05/2024 12:12, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 20/05/24 12:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
On 20/05/2024 11:55, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
Il 18/05/24 23:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
SoCs should use dedicated compatibles for each of their syscon nodes to
precisely describe the block. Using an incorrect compatible does not
allow to properly match/validate children of the syscon device. Replace
SYSCFG compatible, which does not have children, with a new dedicated
one for SCPSYS block.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx>
Technically, that's not a SCPSYS block, but called SYSCFG in MT8365, but the
meaning and the functioning is the same, so it's fine for me.
So there are two syscfg blocks? With exactly the same set of registers
or different?
I'm not sure about that, I don't have the MT8365 datasheet...
Adding Alexandre to the loop - I think he can clarify as he should have the
required documentation.
Unfortunately, The SCPSYS (@10006000) isn't documented, but according to the functionnal
specification, it seems to have only one block.
I don't have the history why SYSCFG instead of SCPSYS.
I've tested your serie and have a regression at the kernel boot time:
[ 7.738117] mtk-power-controller 10006000.syscon:power-controller: Failed to create device link
(0x180) with 14000000.syscon
It's related to your patch 3/4.
--
Regards,
Alexandre
