| Message ID | 20200922024302.205062-1-matheus@castello.eng.br |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add Caninos Loucos Labrador CoM and Base Board Device Tree | expand |
Hi, On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:43:02PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote: > Add Device Trees for Caninos Loucos Labrador CoM Core v3 and base board > M v2. Based on the work of Andreas Färber on Cubieboard 7 device tree. > > Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@castello.eng.br> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/Makefile | 2 + > .../dts/actions/s700-labrador-base-m2.dts | 34 +++++ > .../boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-v3.dtsi | 122 ++++++++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 158 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-base-m2.dts > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-v3.dtsi > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/Makefile b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/Makefile > index b57fd2372ecd..3765697fa91e 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/Makefile > @@ -2,4 +2,6 @@ > > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) += s700-cubieboard7.dtb > > +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) += s700-labrador-base-m2.dtb > + > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) += s900-bubblegum-96.dtb > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-base-m2.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-base-m2.dts > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..63bbca46475b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-base-m2.dts > @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > +/* > + * Copyright (c) 2020 Matheus Castello > + */ > + > +/dts-v1/; > + > +#include "s700-labrador-v3.dtsi" > + > +/ { > + compatible = "caninos,labrador-base-m2", > + "caninos,labrador-v3", "actions,s700"; > + model = "Caninos Labrador Core v3 on Labrador Base-M v2"; > + > + aliases { > + serial3 = &uart3; > + }; > + > + chosen { > + stdout-path = "serial3:115200n8"; > + }; > +}; > + > +&uart3 { > + status = "okay"; No fixed clock? > +}; > + > +&i2c0 { > + status = "okay"; > +}; > + > +&i2c1 { > + status = "okay"; > +}; > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-v3.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-v3.dtsi > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..91addba6382b > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/actions/s700-labrador-v3.dtsi > @@ -0,0 +1,122 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > +/* > + * Copyright (c) 2020 Matheus Castello > + */ > + > +#include "s700.dtsi" > + > +/ { > + compatible = "caninos,labrador-v3", "actions,s700"; > + model = "Caninos Labrador Core v3.1"; > + > + memory@0 { > + device_type = "memory"; > + reg = <0x0 0x0 0x0 0x80000000>; > + }; > + > + memory@1,e0000000 { > + device_type = "memory"; > + reg = <0x1 0xe0000000 0x0 0x0>; > + }; > + What is the size of this memory? The datasheet says only 512MB Max. > + /* Labrador v3 firmware does not support PSCI */ Oops. This is unfortunate... I'm not sure if this is even acceptable for ARM64 machines. Let me add Olof and Arnd... Thanks, Mani > + cpus { > + #address-cells = <1>; > + #size-cells = <0>; > + > + cpu0: cpu@0 { > + device_type = "cpu"; > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53"; > + reg = <0x0>; > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > + cpu-release-addr = <0 0x1f000020>; > + next-level-cache = <&L2>; > + }; > + > + cpu1: cpu@1 { > + device_type = "cpu"; > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53"; > + reg = <0x1>; > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > + cpu-release-addr = <0 0x1f000020>; > + next-level-cache = <&L2>; > + }; > + > + cpu2: cpu@2 { > + device_type = "cpu"; > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53"; > + reg = <0x2>; > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > + cpu-release-addr = <0 0x1f000020>; > + next-level-cache = <&L2>; > + }; > + > + cpu3: cpu@3 { > + device_type = "cpu"; > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53"; > + reg = <0x3>; > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > + cpu-release-addr = <0 0x1f000020>; > + next-level-cache = <&L2>; > + }; > + }; > + > + L2: l2-cache { > + compatible = "cache"; > + cache-level = <2>; > + }; > +}; > + > +&timer { > + clocks = <&hosc>; > +}; > + > +&i2c0 { > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&i2c0_default>; > +}; > + > +&i2c1 { > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&i2c1_default>; > +}; > + > +&i2c2 { > + pinctrl-names = "default"; > + pinctrl-0 = <&i2c2_default>; > +}; > + > +&pinctrl { > + i2c0_default: i2c0_default { > + pinmux { > + groups = "i2c0_mfp"; > + function = "i2c0"; > + }; > + pinconf { > + pins = "i2c0_sclk", "i2c0_sdata"; > + bias-pull-up; > + }; > + }; > + > + i2c1_default: i2c1_default { > + pinmux { > + groups = "i2c1_dummy"; > + function = "i2c1"; > + }; > + pinconf { > + pins = "i2c1_sclk", "i2c1_sdata"; > + bias-pull-up; > + }; > + }; > + > + i2c2_default: i2c2_default { > + pinmux { > + groups = "i2c2_dummy"; > + function = "i2c2"; > + }; > + pinconf { > + pins = "i2c2_sclk", "i2c2_sdata"; > + bias-pull-up; > + }; > + }; > +}; > -- > 2.28.0 >
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:43:01PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote: > Add Device Trees for Caninos Loucos Labrador CoM Core v2 and base board > M v1. Based on the work of Andreas Färber on Lemaker Guitar device tree. > > Signed-off-by: Matheus Castello <matheus@castello.eng.br> > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> > Reviewed-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> Applied for v5.10! Thanks, Mani > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile | 1 + > .../arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-base-m.dts | 35 +++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-v2.dtsi | 22 ++++++++++++ > 3 files changed, 58 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-base-m.dts > create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-v2.dtsi > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile > index 4572db3fa5ae..5d5e370af290 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile > @@ -868,6 +868,7 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ORION5X) += \ > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) += \ > owl-s500-cubieboard6.dtb \ > owl-s500-guitar-bb-rev-b.dtb \ > + owl-s500-labrador-base-m.dtb \ > owl-s500-sparky.dtb > dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_PRIMA2) += \ > prima2-evb.dtb > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-base-m.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-base-m.dts > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..c92f8bdcb331 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-base-m.dts > @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > +/* > + * Caninos Labrador Base Board > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2019-2020 Matheus Castello > + */ > + > +/dts-v1/; > + > +#include "owl-s500-labrador-v2.dtsi" > + > +/ { > + model = "Caninos Labrador Core v2 on Labrador Base-M v1"; > + compatible = "caninos,labrador-base-m", > + "caninos,labrador-v2", "actions,s500"; > + > + aliases { > + serial3 = &uart3; > + }; > + > + chosen { > + stdout-path = "serial3:115200n8"; > + }; > + > + uart3_clk: uart3-clk { > + compatible = "fixed-clock"; > + clock-frequency = <921600>; > + #clock-cells = <0>; > + }; > +}; > + > +&uart3 { > + status = "okay"; > + clocks = <&uart3_clk>; > +}; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-v2.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-v2.dtsi > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..883ff2f9886d > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/owl-s500-labrador-v2.dtsi > @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0+ OR MIT) > +/* > + * Caninos Labrador SoM V2 > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2019-2020 Matheus Castello > + */ > + > +#include "owl-s500.dtsi" > + > +/ { > + model = "Caninos Labrador Core V2.1"; > + compatible = "caninos,labrador-v2", "actions,s500"; > + > + memory@0 { > + device_type = "memory"; > + reg = <0x0 0x80000000>; > + }; > +}; > + > +&timer { > + clocks = <&hosc>; > +}; > -- > 2.28.0 >
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:15 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:43:02PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote: > > + /* Labrador v3 firmware does not support PSCI */ > > Oops. This is unfortunate... I'm not sure if this is even acceptable for > ARM64 machines. > > Let me add Olof and Arnd... Adding Catalin and Will for additional input as well, this is more their area than ours. I don't think we have formalized this as a policy, but we clearly don't want new boards to use the spin table hack. As there are other boards using psci on the same chip, I don't think this is a hardware bug. Matheus: can you explain what keeps you from fixing the bootloader instead? Arnd
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:32:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:15 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:43:02PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote: > > > + /* Labrador v3 firmware does not support PSCI */ > > > > Oops. This is unfortunate... I'm not sure if this is even acceptable for > > ARM64 machines. > > > > Let me add Olof and Arnd... > > Adding Catalin and Will for additional input as well, this is more their > area than ours. > > I don't think we have formalized this as a policy, but we clearly don't > want new boards to use the spin table hack. As there are other > boards using psci on the same chip, I don't think this is a > hardware bug. I fully agree, we shouldn't allow new boards to use the spin-table method unless EL3 is missing on the CPU implementation (not the case here; only the APM hardware has this issue). Unfortunately we missed another platform with A53, see commit bc66392d8258 ("arm64: dts: fsl: Add device tree for S32V234-EVB"). The kernel relies on firmware for other things (power management, errata workarounds), so an SMC calling convention compliant firmware is highly recommended. I also don't see why it would be that hard to add PSCI. Even if you don't port something like Trusted Firmware, U-Boot has basic support for PSCI. So from my perspective, NAK on this patch. I'm tempted to also modify smp_spin_table_cpu_init() to print a big warning and return an error if this is attempted on new platforms. IOW, we make it a policy from now on.
Em 9/22/20 7:26 AM, Catalin Marinas escreveu: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:32:06AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 8:15 AM Manivannan Sadhasivam >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 11:43:02PM -0300, Matheus Castello wrote: >>>> + /* Labrador v3 firmware does not support PSCI */ >>> >>> Oops. This is unfortunate... I'm not sure if this is even acceptable for >>> ARM64 machines. >>> >>> Let me add Olof and Arnd... >> >> Adding Catalin and Will for additional input as well, this is more their >> area than ours. >> >> I don't think we have formalized this as a policy, but we clearly don't >> want new boards to use the spin table hack. As there are other >> boards using psci on the same chip, I don't think this is a >> hardware bug. > > I fully agree, we shouldn't allow new boards to use the spin-table > method unless EL3 is missing on the CPU implementation (not the case > here; only the APM hardware has this issue). Unfortunately we missed > another platform with A53, see commit bc66392d8258 ("arm64: dts: fsl: > Add device tree for S32V234-EVB"). > > The kernel relies on firmware for other things (power management, errata > workarounds), so an SMC calling convention compliant firmware is highly > recommended. I also don't see why it would be that hard to add PSCI. > Even if you don't port something like Trusted Firmware, U-Boot has basic > support for PSCI. > > So from my perspective, NAK on this patch. > Thanks Arnd and Catalin, this is really just a limitation of the bootloader developed by manufactures that comes embedded in the board. I will drop this in the next version. > I'm tempted to also modify smp_spin_table_cpu_init() to print a big > warning and return an error if this is attempted on new platforms. IOW, > we make it a policy from now on. >