Hi Tudor,
On Thu, 2023-12-28 at 12:58 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> [...]
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi
> index 0e5b1b490b0b..c6ae33016992 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi
> @@ -354,6 +354,35 @@ pinctrl_peric0: pinctrl@10840000 {
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 625 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
> };
>
> + usi8: usi@109700c0 {
> + compatible = "google,gs101-usi",
> + "samsung,exynos850-usi";
> + reg = <0x109700c0 0x20>;
> + ranges;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + clocks = <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7>,
> + <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK>;
> + clock-names = "pclk", "ipclk";
Given the clock-names, shouldn't the clock indices be the other way around? Also see below.
> + samsung,sysreg = <&sysreg_peric0 0x101c>;
> + status = "disabled";
> +
> + hsi2c_8: i2c@10970000 {
> + compatible = "google,gs101-hsi2c",
> + "samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c";
> + reg = <0x10970000 0xc0>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 642 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>;
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <0>;
> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> + pinctrl-0 = <&hsi2c8_bus>;
> + clocks = <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7>,
> + <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK>;
> + clock-names = "hsi2c", "hsi2c_pclk";
Here, pclk == CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK (which is correct, I believe), whereas
above pclk == CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7
Cheers,
A.
