On 22-08-30, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > Hello Marco, > > On 30.08.22 10:10, Marco Felsch wrote: > > Hi Ahamd, > > > > On 22-08-30, Ahmad Fatoum wrote: > >> Now with i.MX8M feature controller driver support available, have the > >> OCOTP provide feature control on the i.MX8MM to ensure the kernel DT > >> does not cause Linux to access the VPU and its power domains, > >> when barebox knows them to be unavailable. > >> > >> This is needed because the upstream kernel imx8mm.dtsi only > >> describes the full-featured SoC, which can lead to hangs when > >> instantiating drivers for hardware that's unavailable in a > >> less-featureful variant of the SoC. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Ahmad Fatoum <a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> v1 was RFC patch 10/10 of: > >> https://lore.barebox.org/barebox/20220818051955.2088238-11-a.fatoum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/T/#u > >> > >> Patches 01-08 are still applicable, this replaces the approach in v1 > >> with a standalone feature controller with having the OCOTP as feature > >> controller, like is done for i.MX8MN in patch 08/10 of above referenced > >> series. > >> --- > >> arch/arm/dts/imx8mm.dtsi | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm.dtsi > >> index cdf212820594..1e81d03d6b84 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm.dtsi > >> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/imx8mm.dtsi > >> @@ -1,10 +1,18 @@ > >> // SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > >> + > >> +#include <dt-bindings/features/imx8m.h> > >> + > >> / { > >> aliases { > >> gpr.reboot_mode = &reboot_mode_gpr; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> +feat: &ocotp { > >> + #feature-cells = <1>; > >> + barebox,feature-controller; > >> +}; > > > > Why not just appending the node like: > > > > / { > > aliases { > > gpr.reboot_mode = &reboot_mode_gpr; > > }; > > > > feat: ocotp { > > #feature-cells = <1>; > > barebox,feature-controller; > > }; > > }; > > Yours adds a new /ocotp node while my patch gives the existing > node pointed at by &ocotp an additional label and extends it. This should extend the ocotp node as well or would it be a new node due to the new label? To me it locked very strange, therefore I asked. I never noticed that: "new_label: &old_label {}" is even possible. Regards, Marco > I prefer the additional label, because it gives us flexibility > in future if upstream decides that there should be a dedicated > feature controller. In that case we would only need to move > the label instead of touching all references. see RFC patch 10/10 > referenced above. > > Cheers, > Ahmad > > > > > Regards, > > Marco > > > >> + > >> &pgc_otg1 { > >> barebox,allow-dummy; > >> }; > >> @@ -24,3 +32,47 @@ > >> mode-serial = <0x00000010>, <0x40000000>; > >> }; > >> }; > >> + > >> +&A53_1 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_CPU_DUAL>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&A53_2 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_CPU_QUAD>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&A53_3 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_CPU_QUAD>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&gpc { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat 0>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&vpu_g1 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_VPU>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&vpu_g2 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_VPU>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&vpu_blk_ctrl { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_VPU>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&pgc_vpumix { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_VPU>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&pgc_vpu_g1 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_VPU>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&pgc_vpu_g2 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_VPU>; > >> +}; > >> + > >> +&pgc_vpu_h1 { > >> + barebox,feature-gates = <&feat IMX8M_FEAT_VPU>; > >> +}; > >> -- > >> 2.30.2 > >> > >> > >> > > > > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | >
