On 11.01.2023 03:53, Lux Aliaga wrote:
>
> On 09/01/2023 09:18, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>>
>> On 8.01.2023 20:53, Lux Aliaga wrote:
>>> Adds a UFS host controller node and its corresponding PHY to
>>> the sm6125 platform.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Lux Aliaga <they@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>> index df5453fcf2b9..cec7071d5279 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sm6125.dtsi
>>> @@ -511,6 +511,63 @@ sdhc_2: mmc@4784000 {
>>> status = "disabled";
>>> };
>>> + ufs_mem_hc: ufs@4804000 {
>>> + compatible = "qcom,sm6125-ufshc", "qcom,ufshc", "jedec,ufs-2.0";
>>> + reg = <0x04804000 0x3000>, <0x04810000 0x8000>;
>> You need reg-names for ICE to probe, otherwise the second reg sits unused.
>>
>>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 356 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> + phys = <&ufs_mem_phy>;
>>> + phy-names = "ufsphy";
>>> + lanes-per-direction = <1>;
>>> + #reset-cells = <1>;
>>> + resets = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_BCR>;
>>> + reset-names = "rst";
>>> + iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x200 0x0>;
>>> +
>>> + clock-names = "core_clk",
>>> + "bus_aggr_clk",
>>> + "iface_clk",
>>> + "core_clk_unipro",
>>> + "ref_clk",
>>> + "tx_lane0_sync_clk",
>>> + "rx_lane0_sync_clk",
>>> + "ice_core_clk";
>>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
>>> + <&gcc GCC_SYS_NOC_UFS_PHY_AXI_CLK>,
>>> + <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_AHB_CLK>,
>>> + <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_UNIPRO_CORE_CLK>,
>>> + <&rpmcc RPM_SMD_XO_CLK_SRC>,
>>> + <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_TX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>,
>>> + <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_RX_SYMBOL_0_CLK>,
>>> + <&gcc GCC_UFS_PHY_ICE_CORE_CLK>;
>>> + freq-table-hz = <50000000 240000000>,
>>> + <0 0>,
>>> + <0 0>,
>>> + <37500000 150000000>,
>>> + <0 0>,
>>> + <0 0>,
>>> + <0 0>,
>>> + <75000000 300000000>;
>>> +
>>> + status = "disabled";
>>> + };
>>> +
>>> + ufs_mem_phy: phy@4807000 {
>>> + compatible = "qcom,sm6125-qmp-ufs-phy";
>>> + reg = <0x04807000 0x1c4>;
>> Isn't this too small? Downstream says 0xdb8, but it's probably even bigger..
> What do you think could help me find the new length of the registers? I tried 0x1000 and it probed just fine, but I'm not really sure until what extent I could push it.
The "true" values are probably only in documentation, which
I don't have.
Konrad
>
