[PATCH v2 1/1] arm64: Add DTS support for FSL's LS1012A SoC

[Bhaskar U]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stuart Yoder
>Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 7:26 PM
>To: Bhaskar U <bhaskar.upadhaya at nxp.com>; Shawn Guo
><shawnguo at kernel.org>
>Cc: devicetree at vger.kernel.org; oss at buserror.net; Prabhakar Kushwaha
><prabhakar.kushwaha at nxp.com>; linux-devel at gforge.freescale.net; Pratiyush
>Srivastava <pratiyush.srivastava at nxp.com>; linux-arm-
>kernel at lists.infradead.org
>Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/1] arm64: Add DTS support for FSL's LS1012A SoC
>
>> >> +&qspi {
>> >> +	num-cs = <2>;
>> >> +	bus-num = <0>;
>> >> +	status = "disabled";
>> >
>> >Why is it being disabled?
>>
>> Ok, will change like below.
>> status = "okay";
>
>The comment was not "change this to okay".  The question is why is this disabled?
>Can you explain why it was disabled?   Should it have been disasbled?  Is qspi
>working and tested on this board?

The intension of putting the status in disabled state is that the qspi functionality is not tested with the up-streamed kernel.
Yes qspi is working and tested on this board with 4.1 kernel version.
>
>>
>> >
>> >> +	fsl,ddr-sampling-point = <4>;
>> >
>> >I do not find the bindings for this property, neither how driver supports it.
>>
>> Yes the QSPI DDR mode is not yet up-streamed, so  I will remove this property
>as of now.
>>
>> >
>> >> +
>> >> +	qflash0: s25fs512s at 0 {
>> >> +		compatible = "spansion,m25p80";
>> >> +		#address-cells = <1>;
>> >> +		#size-cells = <1>;
>> >> +		spi-max-frequency = <20000000>;
>> >> +		m25p,fast-read;
>> >> +		reg = <0>;
>> >> +	};
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +&i2c0 {
>> >> +	status = "okay";
>> >> +
>> >> +	codec: sgtl5000 at a {
>> >> +		#sound-dai-cells = <0>;
>> >> +		compatible = "fsl,sgtl5000";
>> >> +		reg = <0xa>;
>> >> +		VDDA-supply = <&reg_1p8v>;
>> >> +		VDDIO-supply = <&reg_1p8v>;
>> >> +		clocks = <&sys_mclk>;
>> >> +	};
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +&duart0 {
>> >> +	status = "okay";
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +&esdhc0 {
>> >> +	status = "disabled";
>> >
>> >We prefer to disable devices which have board level options by
>> >default in <soc>.dtsi, and enable them per availability in <board>.dts.
>>
>> Ok , will make the status as okay i.e. status = "okay";
>
>Again, the feedback was not "set this to okay".  Why was esdhc0 set to "disabled"
>here in the first place?  Was there a reason?
>
>The comment is that if there are certain boards where esdhc0 is not available,
>then fsl-ls1012a.dtsi should set this to "disabled" and board .dts files should
>override it.

esdhc0 is not there on this board so shall we mark the status in disabled state ?

>
>> >
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +&esdhc1 {
>> >> +	status = "disabled";
>> >> +};
>> >> +
>> >> +&sai2 {
>> >> +	status = "disabled";
>> >> +};
>
>Same comment for the above nodes.  The fsl-ls1012a.dtsi should set them to
>disabled and any .dts file should override with "ok" if applicable.

esdhc1 is not there on the board, so shall we keep the status of esdhc1 in disabled state ?
sai2 is working and tested on this board, so shall we put the sai2 status as  "okay" ?
Earlier when we kept sai2 status as disabled, by that time sai2 was not tested but now it is working fine.
>
>Stuart