spi: Regression with v7.0-rc1 on VisionFive 2

Miquel Raynal miquel.raynal at bootlin.com
Mon Mar 2 00:27:00 PST 2026


Hello,

>> > > I'm getting an SPI failure with Linux v7.0-rc1 on the VisionFive 2 RISC-V board.
>> > 
>> > > Feb 28 00:29:33 visionfive kernel: cadence-qspi 13010000.spi: QSPI is still busy after 500ms timeout.
>> > > Feb 28 00:29:33 visionfive kernel: cadence-qspi 13010000.spi: detected FIFO depth (1) different from config (256)
>> > > Feb 28 00:29:33 visionfive kernel: cadence-qspi 13010000.spi: QSPI is still busy after 500ms timeout.
>> > > Feb 28 00:29:33 visionfive kernel: cadence-qspi 13010000.spi: QSPI is still busy after 500ms timeout.
>> > > Feb 28 00:29:33 visionfive kernel: spi-nor spi1.0: operation failed with -110
>> > > Feb 28 00:29:33 visionfive kernel: spi-nor spi1.0: probe with driver spi-nor failed with error -110
>> > 
>> > FWIW confirmed on my system:
>> > 
>> >    https://lava.sirena.org.uk/scheduler/job/2504026#L715
>> > 
>> > (which I didn't notice as that was just buildroot and not running
>> > kselftest-dt...).
>> 
>> This probably constitutes random speculation, but I am curious if
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110.dtsi b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110.dtsi
>> index 6e56e9d20bb06..390fa87edbaf8 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110.dtsi
>> @@ -873,9 +873,9 @@ qspi: spi at 13010000 {
>>  			      <0x0 0x21000000 0x0 0x400000>;
>>  			interrupts = <25>;
>>  			clocks = <&syscrg JH7110_SYSCLK_QSPI_REF>,
>> -				 <&syscrg JH7110_SYSCLK_QSPI_AHB>,
>> -				 <&syscrg JH7110_SYSCLK_QSPI_APB>;
>> -			clock-names = "ref", "ahb", "apb";
>> +				 <&syscrg JH7110_SYSCLK_QSPI_APB>,
>> +				 <&syscrg JH7110_SYSCLK_QSPI_AHB>;
>> +			clock-names = "ref", "apb", "ahb";
>>  			resets = <&syscrg JH7110_SYSRST_QSPI_APB>,
>>  				 <&syscrg JH7110_SYSRST_QSPI_AHB>,
>>  				 <&syscrg JH7110_SYSRST_QSPI_REF>;
>> has any impact. Going from jh7110 specific code to bulk apis is an
>> ordering change, right?
>
> According to Ron, it had no impact.

Thanks for the report, and thanks for the try. Let me have a look.

Thanks,
Miquèl



More information about the linux-riscv mailing list