On 2025/2/25 8:38, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 08:23:36AM +0800, Chen Wang wrote:
On 2025/2/24 18:12, Longbin Li wrote:
Add SPI NOR device node for Sophgo.
Signed-off-by: Longbin Li <looong.bin@xxxxxxxxx>
---
.../boot/dts/sophgo/sg2044-sophgo-sd3-10.dts | 18 ++++++++++++++
arch/riscv/boot/dts/sophgo/sg2044.dtsi | 24 +++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sophgo/sg2044-sophgo-sd3-10.dts b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sophgo/sg2044-sophgo-sd3-10.dts
index c50e61a50013..9c634920f37e 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sophgo/sg2044-sophgo-sd3-10.dts
+++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sophgo/sg2044-sophgo-sd3-10.dts
@@ -80,6 +80,24 @@ &sd {
status = "okay";
};
+&spifmc0 {
+ status = "okay";
+
+ flash@0 {
+ compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
+ reg = <0>;
+ };
+};
+
+&spifmc1 {
+ status = "okay";
+
+ flash@0 {
+ compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
+ reg = <0>;
+ };
+};
+
&uart1 {
status = "okay";
};
What is your baseline? I can't see "sg2044-sophgo-sd3-10.dts " on the latest
mainline yet.
It seems like he forgot to remove this patch as the baseline is not
submitted.
BTW, the name "sg2044-sophgo-sd3-10" seems a bit redundant. Wouldn't
"sg2044-sd3-10" be better?
I do not think so. we want <soc-vendor-board> format. In this format.
sophgo is a must.
All these dts* files are under "sophgo" folder, that's why I think
"sophgo" is redundant for file name.
Anyway, if you do WANT the format, I won't object strongly.
Regards,
Inochi
