[PATCH v1 2/2] arm: dts: mt2701: add nor flash node
Marek Vasut
marek.vasut at gmail.com
Mon Jan 16 08:09:13 PST 2017
On 01/16/2017 09:40 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2017 01:23:48 +0100
> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 01/14/2017 09:29 AM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 18:33:40 +0100
>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 01/13/2017 05:56 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:44:12 +0100
>>>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/13/2017 05:28 PM, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 17:13:55 +0100
>>>>>>> Marek Vasut <marek.vasut at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 01/13/2017 04:12 PM, Matthias Brugger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 13/01/17 15:17, Boris Brezillon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:13:29 +0800
>>>>>>>>>> Guochun Mao <guochun.mao at mediatek.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Add Mediatek nor flash node.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Guochun Mao <guochun.mao at mediatek.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi | 12 ++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
>>>>>>>>>>> index 082ca88..85e5ae8 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -24,6 +24,31 @@
>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> +&nor_flash {
>>>>>>>>>>> + pinctrl-names = "default";
>>>>>>>>>>> + pinctrl-0 = <&nor_pins_default>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + status = "okay";
>>>>>>>>>>> + flash at 0 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
>>>>>>>>>>> + reg = <0>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> +&pio {
>>>>>>>>>>> + nor_pins_default: nor {
>>>>>>>>>>> + pins1 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + pinmux = <MT2701_PIN_240_EXT_XCS__FUNC_EXT_XCS>,
>>>>>>>>>>> + <MT2701_PIN_241_EXT_SCK__FUNC_EXT_SCK>,
>>>>>>>>>>> + <MT2701_PIN_239_EXT_SDIO0__FUNC_EXT_SDIO0>,
>>>>>>>>>>> + <MT2701_PIN_238_EXT_SDIO1__FUNC_EXT_SDIO1>,
>>>>>>>>>>> + <MT2701_PIN_237_EXT_SDIO2__FUNC_EXT_SDIO2>,
>>>>>>>>>>> + <MT2701_PIN_236_EXT_SDIO3__FUNC_EXT_SDIO3>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + drive-strength = <MTK_DRIVE_4mA>;
>>>>>>>>>>> + bias-pull-up;
>>>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>>>>>> +};
>>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>>> &uart0 {
>>>>>>>>>>> status = "okay";
>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>>> index bdf8954..1eefce4 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -227,6 +227,18 @@
>>>>>>>>>>> status = "disabled";
>>>>>>>>>>> };
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> + nor_flash: spi at 11014000 {
>>>>>>>>>>> + compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor",
>>>>>>>>>>> + "mediatek,mt8173-nor";
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why define both here? Is "mediatek,mt8173-nor" really providing a
>>>>>>>>>> subset of the features supported by "mediatek,mt2701-nor"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think even if the ip block is the same, we should provide both
>>>>>>>>> bindings, just in case in the future we find out that mt2701 has some
>>>>>>>>> hidden bug, feature or bug-feature. This way even if we update the
>>>>>>>>> driver, we stay compatible with older device tree blobs in the wild.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We can drop the mt2701-nor in the bindings definition if you want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. What I meant is that if you want to
>>>>>>> list/support all possible compatibles, maybe you should just put one
>>>>>>> compatible in your DT and patch your driver (+ binding doc) to define
>>>>>>> all of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh, what ? I lost you here :-)
>>>
>>> I mean adding a new entry in the mtk_nor_of_ids table (in
>>> mtk-quadspi.c) so that the mediatek,mt2701-nor compatible string can be
>>> matched directly, and you won't need to define 2 compatible strings in
>>> your device tree.
>>
>> But then you grow the table in the driver, is that what we want if we
>> can avoid that ?
>
> The space you save by not growing the mtk_nor_of_ids table is lost in
> your dtbs, so I'm not sure the size argument is relevant here. Also,
> note that distros are shipping a lot of dtbs, and you're likely to have
> several boards based on the mt2701 SoC, so, for this specific use case,
> it's better to make the in-driver of-id table grow than specifying 2
> compatibles in the DT. But as I said, I'm not sure we should rely on
> this argument to decide which approach to choose (we're talking about a
> few bytes here).
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This exactly. We should have a DT compat in the form:
>>>>>>>> compatible = "vendor,<soc>-block", "vendor,<oldest-compat-soc>-block";
>>>>>>>> Then if we find a problem in the future, we can match on the
>>>>>>>> "vendor,<soc>-block" and still support the old DTs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not sure it's only in term of whose IP appeared first. My understanding
>>>>>>> is that it's a way to provide inheritance. For example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "<soc-vendor>,<ip-version>", "<ip-vendor>,<ip-version>";
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "<soc-vendor>,<full-featured-ip-version>","<soc-vendor>,<basic-feature-ip-version>";
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, which one is the oldest between mt8173 and mt2701? :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that's another thing and I agree with you, but I don't think that's
>>>>>> what we're discussing in this thread. But (!), OT, I think we should
>>>>>> codify the rules in Documentation/ . This discussion came up multiple
>>>>>> times recently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And my question still stands, what do we put into the DT here, IMO
>>>>>> compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor", "mediatek,mt8173-nor";
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd say
>>>>>
>>>>> compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-nor";
>>>>>
>>>>> because both compatible are referring to very specific IP version. It's
>>>>> not the same as
>>>>
>>>> But then you don't have the ability to handle a block in this particular
>>>> SoC in case there's a bug found in it in the future,
>>>> so IMO it should be:
>>>>
>>>> compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor", "mediatek,mt8173-nor";
>>>
>>> Sorry again, I meant
>>>
>>> compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor";
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> compatible = "mediatek,mt8173-nor", "mediatek,mt81xx-nor";
>>>>
>>>> This doesn't look right, since here we add two new compatibles ...
>>>
>>> That was just an example to describe how compatible inheritance works
>>> (at least that's my understanding of it), it does not apply to this
>>> particular use case.
>>
>> Well this is OK I guess, but then you can also use "mediatek,mt8173-nor"
>> as the oldest supported compatible and be done with it, no ? It looks a
>> bit crappy though, I admit that ...
>>
>
> Let's stop bikeshedding and wait for DT maintainers feedback
> before taking a decision ;-).
+1 :)
> Rob, Mark, any opinion?
>
--
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
More information about the Linux-mediatek
mailing list