Hello.
On 07/31/2013 11:31 PM, Tuomas Tynkkynen wrote:
From: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Device tree entries for the three EHCI controllers on Tegra114.
Enables the the third controller (USB host) on Dalmore.
I would have done the board patch separately from the SoC one.
Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx>
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114.dtsi
b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114.dtsi
index abf6c40..2905145 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra114.dtsi
@@ -430,6 +430,68 @@
status = "disable";
};
+ usb@7d000000 {
+ compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ehci", "usb-ehci";
+ reg = <0x7d000000 0x4000>;
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 20 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ phy_type = "utmi";
+ clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA114_CLK_USBD>;
+ nvidia,phy = <&phy1>;
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ phy1: usb-phy@7d000000 {
At the same address as the previous node?
Yes. The first node is for the EHCI driver and the second for the PHY driver.
There is some overlap in the exact registers used, so both drives map the
whole USB controller block.
That's really horrible design.
+ compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-usb-phy";
+ reg = <0x7d000000 0x4000 0x7d000000 0x4000>;
Hm, there must be some mistake: two similar register ranges.
The second range is used to configure the UTMI pad registers. All the UTMI pad
registers are located in the first USB controller's range.
Which second range? This is one and the same range.
+ usb@7d008000 {
+ compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-ehci", "usb-ehci";
+ reg = <0x7d008000 0x4000>;
+ interrupts = <GIC_SPI 97 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
+ phy_type = "utmi";
+ clocks = <&tegra_car TEGRA114_CLK_USB3>;
+ nvidia,phy = <&phy3>;
+ status = "disabled";
+ };
+
+ phy3: usb-phy@7d008000 {
Again at the same address as previous node?
+ compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-usb-phy";
+ reg = <0x7d008000 0x4000 0x7d000000 0x4000>;
Second range conflicts with previous nodes.
Are you sure it's valid? Are you sure it shouldn't be 0x7d008000?
WBR, Sergei
All these entries mapping the same address are expected. See
arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi for an existing example of Tegra USB bindings.
Don't they cause numerous resource conflicts while device nodes being
instantiated as the platform devices?
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
