On 14/01/2024 15:16, Josua Mayer wrote:
> Am 12.01.24 um 18:22 schrieb Krzysztof Kozlowski:
>
>>> + /* PRU Ethernet Controller */
>>> + icssg1_eth: icssg1-eth {
>> Node names should be generic.
> This name intentionally includes the name of the ip block within am64 soc providing software-defined ethernet controller through coprocessors TI call "pru".
Why? This intentionally should not include specific name.
Also, wrap your emails at proper length so they will be manageable...
>> See also an explanation and list of
>> examples (not exhaustive) in DT specification:
>> https://devicetree-specification.readthedocs.io/en/latest/chapter2-devicetree-basics.html#generic-names-recommendation
>>
>>
>>> + compatible = "ti,am642-icssg-prueth";
>>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&pru_rgmii1_pins_default>, <&pru_rgmii2_pins_default>;
>>> +
>>> + sram = <&oc_sram>;
>>> + ti,prus = <&pru1_0>, <&rtu1_0>, <&tx_pru1_0>, <&pru1_1>, <&rtu1_1>, <&tx_pru1_1>;
>>> + firmware-name = "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-pru0-prueth-fw.elf",
>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-rtu0-prueth-fw.elf",
>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-txpru0-prueth-fw.elf",
>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-pru1-prueth-fw.elf",
>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-rtu1-prueth-fw.elf",
>>> + "ti-pruss/am65x-sr2-txpru1-prueth-fw.elf";
>>> +
>>> + ti,pruss-gp-mux-sel = <2>, /* MII mode */
>>> + <2>,
>>> + <2>,
>>> + <2>, /* MII mode */
>>> + <2>,
>>> + <2>;
>>> +
>>> + ti,mii-g-rt = <&icssg1_mii_g_rt>;
>>> + ti,mii-rt = <&icssg1_mii_rt>;
>>> + ti,iep = <&icssg1_iep0>, <&icssg1_iep1>;
>>> +
>>> + interrupt-parent = <&icssg1_intc>;
>>> + interrupts = <24 0 2>, <25 1 3>;
>> None of these are typical interrupt constants/flags?
>>
>>> + interrupt-names = "tx_ts0", "tx_ts1";
>>> +
>>> + dmas = <&main_pktdma 0xc200 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc201 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc202 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc203 15>, /* egress slice 0 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc204 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc205 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc206 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0xc207 15>, /* egress slice 1 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4200 15>, /* ingress slice 0 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4201 15>, /* ingress slice 1 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4202 0>, /* mgmnt rsp slice 0 */
>>> + <&main_pktdma 0x4203 0>; /* mgmnt rsp slice 1 */
>>> + dma-names = "tx0-0", "tx0-1", "tx0-2", "tx0-3",
>>> + "tx1-0", "tx1-1", "tx1-2", "tx1-3",
>>> + "rx0", "rx1";
>>> +
>>> + status = "okay";
>> Drop. Didn't you get such comments before?
>
> Yes, but again I can point to an in-tree example of the same structure.
> I see no reason for describing the same thing differently in different places.
So if there is a bug, you are going to duplicate it.
Please provide real argument why this is needed, not "I saw it
somewhere", or drop it. Otherwise it's a NAK from me.
>
> Please see arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am654-idk.dtso
> There are only small differences for this feature between am65 and am64.
> It's inclusion in the tree was very recent, clearly it was good enough right?
> See also my cover letter dtbs_check remark on dmas property.
How does dmas matter? What are you talking about?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
