Hi
On 8/7/24 11:38, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
Hello Oleksij,
On 06.08.24 14:05, Oleksij Rempel wrote:
Rename 'pins1' to 'pins' in the qspi_bk1_pins_a node to correct the
subnode name. The previous name caused the configuration to be
applied to the wrong subnode, resulting in QSPI not working properly.
Signed-off-by: Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp151a-prtt1l.dtsi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp151a-prtt1l.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp151a-prtt1l.dtsi
index 3938d357e198f..4db684478c320 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp151a-prtt1l.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/st/stm32mp151a-prtt1l.dtsi
@@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ flash@0 {
};
&qspi_bk1_pins_a {
- pins1 {
+ pins {
As you have seen such device tree overriding is error prone and would
be entirely avoidable if specifying full board-specific pinctrl groups
was allowed for the stm32 platforms instead of override-and-pray.
You can create your own pin group in stm32mp15-pinctlr.dtsi. What is the
issue ? Do I miss something ? It will avoid to overwrite an existing
configuration
regards
alex
Anyways, there's better syntax for such overriding now:
&{qspi_blk1_pins_a/pins}
which would cause a compilation error if pins was renamed again.
bias-pull-up;
There's bias-disable in stm32mp15-pinctrl.dtsi. You may want to add
a /delete-property/ for that to make sure, it's not up to the driver
which one has priority.
drive-push-pull;
slew-rate = <1>;
These are already in qspi_bk1_pins_a. If repeating those is ok, why
not go a step further and just duplicate the pinmux property and stay
clear of this issue altogether, provided Alex is amenable to changing
his mind regarding pinctrl groups in board device trees.
Cheers,
Ahmad
