On 12/29/23 08:04, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
>
>
> On 12/28/23 14:04, André Draszik wrote:
>> Hi Tudor,
>
> Hi!
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> You're right, they should have been the other way around! Didn't make
> any difference at testing because the usi driver uses
> clk_bulk_prepare_enable(), what matters is the order of clocks in the
> i2c node, and those are fine.
>
>>
>>> + 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
>>
>
> Indeed, I'll reverse the order for the USI clocks and do some more
> testing. Thanks!
FYI, I reversed the order of the USI clocks, tested again with the
eeprom at 100 KHz and 10KHz, everything went fine. I'll wait for some
other feedback and probably submit a v3 next week.
Cheers,
ta
