[PATCH V4] arm64: amd-seattle: Adding device tree for AMD Seattle platform

[Suthikulpanit, Suravee]

Hi Olof,

On 11/25/14, 06:09, "Olof Johansson" <olof at lixom.net> wrote:

>Hi Suravee,
>
>Some comments below.
>
>
>On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 1:51 PM,  <suravee.suthikulpanit at amd.com> wrote:
>> From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit at amd.com>
>>
>>[...]
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile
>> index f8001a6..604af09 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile
>> @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
>> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE) += amd-seattle.dtb
>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_THUNDER) += thunder-88xx.dtb
>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_VEXPRESS) += rtsm_ve-aemv8a.dtb foundation-v8.dtb
>
>For 3.19, we're moving all device tree files on arm64 int per-vendor
>subdirectories.
>
>Can you please prepare this patch to go on top of linux-next (or
>arm-soc for-next) such that it adds this file in the same place?
>
>(Alternatively, we can move it when applying, it's not a huge deal).

No problem. I will provide V5 based with the new directory structure.

>
>
>>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_XGENE) += apm-mustang.dtb
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd-seattle-periph.dtsi
>>b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd-seattle-periph.dtsi
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..77f565b
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd-seattle-periph.dtsi
>> @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
>> +/*
>> + * DTS file for AMD Seattle Peripheral
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
>> + */
>> +
>> +/ {
>> +       motherboard {
>> +               compatible = "simple-bus";
>
>I'm not sure I understand this abstraction. You have a motherboard
>device node, under which you have things like the pl011 UART and SATA
>-- while those blocks really are part of SoC, aren't they? After all,
>you have the pci-e controller as part of the dts file and not the
>dtsi.

Yes, they are parts of the SoC. I will rename the entry to smb,
and I will move the pcie under the smb.
 
>
>Unless you have some underlying motive, it would make more sense to
>keep these at the same toplevel since the "motherboard" doesn't seem
>to be part of the hardware topology as described.

I will restructure the DTS/DTSI and send out V5.

>[..]
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd-seattle.dts
>>b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd-seattle.dts
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..d5fc482
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amd-seattle.dts
>> @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
>> +/*
>> + * DTS file for AMD Seattle
>> + *
>> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
>> + */
>> +
>> +/dts-v1/;
>> +
>> +/include/ "amd-seattle-periph.dtsi"
>> +
>> +/ {
>> +       compatible = "amd,seattle";
>> +       interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>> +       #address-cells = <2>;
>> +       #size-cells = <2>;
>
>So is this the dts for a specific board? Isn't Seattle the SoC? You
>might want to have a different topmost compatible here to identify the
>board. You should also have a "model" property here to describe what
>the hardware is.
>
>(I'm guessing it's really the development board for Seattle, correct?)

Yes, Seattle is an SoC, and this DTS is meant for the Seattle development
board.

I will add the model property accordingly.


>[..]
>> +
>> +       pcie0: pcie-controller {
>> +               compatible = "pci-host-ecam-generic";
>
>The controller itself should likely go in the SoC dtsi, and only
>per-board additional attributes should go here.

Ok, I will move it.

>
>It's also common to add a status = "disabled" in the dtsi, and
>overriding in the per-system dts with status = "okay" for those IP
>blocks that are actually useful on a particular platform.
>
>So, for example, if the SoC has SATA, but a particular board does not,
>then you wouldn't enable it in the dts.
>
>Also, if you use labels for the nodes in the dts, then you can do a
>flat-format dts where you don't have to exactly duplicate the same
>hierarchy of nodes to override a property (you're already using
>labels). I.e. in this case you could then do (for a board that does
>use sata):
>
>&sata0 {
>        status = "okay";
>};
>
>in the dts (this would go at the top level of the file, not nested
>under other nodes).

This is actually a great idea. Thank you for suggestions. I will adopt
this approach in the V5.

Thanks,

Suravee