| Message ID | 1540295058-26090-8-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [V2,1/8] dt-bindings: fsl: add compatible for imx7ulp evk | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| robh/checkpatch | warning | "total: 0 errors, 3 warnings, 102 lines checked" |
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:56 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> wrote: > +/ { > + model = "NXP i.MX7ULP EVK"; > + compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-evk", "fsl,imx7ulp", "Generic DT based system"; This "Generic DT based system" should be removed. > + chosen { > + stdout-path = &lpuart4; > + }; > + > + memory@60000000 { device_type = "memory"; > + reg = <0x60000000 0x40000000>; > + }; > +&iomuxc1 { > + pinctrl_lpuart4: lpuart4grp { > + pinmux = < > + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC3__LPUART4_RX > + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC2__LPUART4_TX > + >; > + bias-pull-up; Please change the mx7ulp pinctrl driver to accept the "old" notation and change the dts to use: IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC3__LPUART4_RX 0x3 This way we use the same method for all i.MX devices.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2018 8:29 PM [...] > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:56 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> wrote: > > > +/ { > > + model = "NXP i.MX7ULP EVK"; > > + compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-evk", "fsl,imx7ulp", "Generic DT > > +based system"; > > This "Generic DT based system" should be removed. > Got it > > + chosen { > > + stdout-path = &lpuart4; > > + }; > > + > > + memory@60000000 { > > device_type = "memory"; Got it > > + reg = <0x60000000 0x40000000>; > > + }; > > > +&iomuxc1 { > > + pinctrl_lpuart4: lpuart4grp { > > + pinmux = < > > + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC3__LPUART4_RX > > + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC2__LPUART4_TX > > + >; > > + bias-pull-up; > > Please change the mx7ulp pinctrl driver to accept the "old" notation and > change the dts to use: > > IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC3__LPUART4_RX 0x3 > > This way we use the same method for all i.MX devices. I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it. There's no extra effort to use it. And we probably could take ULP as a special case to test generic binding rather then simply drop it and drop driver features. Once we get objection from users later, we still can simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it. Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices. MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28. And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28. Regards Dong Aisheng
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> wrote: > I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it. There's no extra effort > to use it. And we probably could take ULP as a special case to test generic binding > rather then simply drop it and drop driver features. Once we get objection from users > later, we still can simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it. We had this same discussion some months ago when we were reviewing i.MX8 support. I don't see the value in doing pinctrl differently on i.MX7ULP. > Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices. > MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28. > And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28. Yes, but these are legacy platforms. For new ones, we should try to keep consistency, just like we discussed during i.MX8 review.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:26 AM [...] > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> wrote: > > > I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it. > > There's no extra effort to use it. And we probably could take ULP as a > > special case to test generic binding rather then simply drop it and > > drop driver features. Once we get objection from users later, we still can > simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it. > > We had this same discussion some months ago when we were reviewing > i.MX8 support. > > I don't see the value in doing pinctrl differently on i.MX7ULP. > I thought the situation is different as ULP actually already supports generic binding before that discussion. > > Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices. > > MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28. > > And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28. > > Yes, but these are legacy platforms. > > For new ones, we should try to keep consistency, just like we discussed during > i.MX8 review. So the question is whether it's necessary to switch generic binding back to the legacy one for ULP. Personally I'm not strongly against this, but I need some confirmation from Shawn and Sascha. Shawn & Sascha, would you make a judgement call? If you also strongly request that, I will try to make it patch to test Linus W. Hopefully our agreement could satisfy Linus W. Regards Dong Aisheng
Hi Shawn & Sascha, > -----Original Message----- > From: A.s. Dong > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 4:14 PM [...] > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:26 AM > [...] > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> > wrote: > > > > > I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it. > > > There's no extra effort to use it. And we probably could take ULP as > > > a special case to test generic binding rather then simply drop it > > > and drop driver features. Once we get objection from users later, we > > > still can > > simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it. > > > > We had this same discussion some months ago when we were reviewing > > i.MX8 support. > > > > I don't see the value in doing pinctrl differently on i.MX7ULP. > > > > I thought the situation is different as ULP actually already supports generic > binding before that discussion. > > > > Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices. > > > MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28. > > > And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28. > > > > Yes, but these are legacy platforms. > > > > For new ones, we should try to keep consistency, just like we > > discussed during > > i.MX8 review. > > So the question is whether it's necessary to switch generic binding back to the > legacy one for ULP. Personally I'm not strongly against this, but I need some > confirmation from Shawn and Sascha. > > Shawn & Sascha, would you make a judgement call? > If you also strongly request that, I will try to make it patch to test Linus W. > Hopefully our agreement could satisfy Linus W. > Would you please let me know if you're all okay with this? Regards Dong Aisheng > Regards > Dong Aisheng
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:14:01AM +0000, A.s. Dong wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:26 AM > [...] > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> wrote: > > > > > I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it. > > > There's no extra effort to use it. And we probably could take ULP as a > > > special case to test generic binding rather then simply drop it and > > > drop driver features. Once we get objection from users later, we still can > > simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it. > > > > We had this same discussion some months ago when we were reviewing > > i.MX8 support. > > > > I don't see the value in doing pinctrl differently on i.MX7ULP. > > > > I thought the situation is different as ULP actually already supports generic binding > before that discussion. > > > > Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices. > > > MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28. > > > And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28. > > > > Yes, but these are legacy platforms. > > > > For new ones, we should try to keep consistency, just like we discussed during > > i.MX8 review. > > So the question is whether it's necessary to switch generic binding back to the > legacy one for ULP. Personally I'm not strongly against this, but I need some > confirmation from Shawn and Sascha. > > Shawn & Sascha, would you make a judgement call? > If you also strongly request that, I will try to make it patch to test Linus W. > Hopefully our agreement could satisfy Linus W. For consistency reasons I vote for using the legacy binding for i.MX7ulp aswell. Sascha
> -----Original Message----- > From: Sascha Hauer [mailto:s.hauer@pengutronix.de] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2018 6:57 PM [...] > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 08:14:01AM +0000, A.s. Dong wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Fabio Estevam [mailto:festevam@gmail.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 12:26 AM > > [...] > > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 11:42 AM A.s. Dong <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > I'm a bit hesitate to do that as the driver already supports it. > > > > There's no extra effort to use it. And we probably could take ULP > > > > as a special case to test generic binding rather then simply drop > > > > it and drop driver features. Once we get objection from users > > > > later, we still can > > > simply fallback as there's still only official boards using it. > > > > > > We had this same discussion some months ago when we were reviewing > > > i.MX8 support. > > > > > > I don't see the value in doing pinctrl differently on i.MX7ULP. > > > > > > > I thought the situation is different as ULP actually already supports > > generic binding before that discussion. > > > > > > Last, it's not correct that there's not only one method for all i.MX devices. > > > > MX23/28 are different ones and ULP is more like MX23/28. > > > > And I saw no objections from users for MX23/28. > > > > > > Yes, but these are legacy platforms. > > > > > > For new ones, we should try to keep consistency, just like we > > > discussed during > > > i.MX8 review. > > > > So the question is whether it's necessary to switch generic binding > > back to the legacy one for ULP. Personally I'm not strongly against > > this, but I need some confirmation from Shawn and Sascha. > > > > Shawn & Sascha, would you make a judgement call? > > If you also strongly request that, I will try to make it patch to test Linus W. > > Hopefully our agreement could satisfy Linus W. > > For consistency reasons I vote for using the legacy binding for i.MX7ulp aswell. > Thanks for the feedback. Will try to cook a patch to send to Linus W. Regards Dong Aisheng > Sascha > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | > | > Industrial Linux Solutions | > https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww. > pengutronix.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Caisheng.dong%40nxp.com%7C74 > a0d2aca1cf432528a608d63b31c614%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c3016 > 35%7C0%7C0%7C636761482309424341&sdata=Mi5aWJmBcYI3xZLsEdj > O%2BQ7JUKZS1EzXuW%2Bd2WBJtek%3D&reserved=0 | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 > | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: > +49-5121-206917-5555 |
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile index d7268ae..39eac9c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile @@ -573,6 +573,8 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_SOC_IMX7D) += \ imx7d-sdb-sht11.dtb \ imx7s-colibri-eval-v3.dtb \ imx7s-warp.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_SOC_IMX7ULP) += \ + imx7ulp-evk.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_SOC_LS1021A) += \ ls1021a-moxa-uc-8410a.dtb \ ls1021a-qds.dtb \ diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7ulp-evk.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7ulp-evk.dts new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d876cb3 --- /dev/null +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7ulp-evk.dts @@ -0,0 +1,94 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+ +/* + * Copyright 2016 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. + * Copyright 2017-2018 NXP + * Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> + */ + +/dts-v1/; + +#include "imx7ulp.dtsi" + +/ { + model = "NXP i.MX7ULP EVK"; + compatible = "fsl,imx7ulp-evk", "fsl,imx7ulp", "Generic DT based system"; + + chosen { + stdout-path = &lpuart4; + }; + + memory@60000000 { + reg = <0x60000000 0x40000000>; + }; + + reg_vsd_3v3: regulator-vsd-3v3 { + compatible = "regulator-fixed"; + regulator-name = "VSD_3V3"; + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + pinctrl-names = "default"; + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_usdhc0_rst>; + gpio = <&gpio_ptd 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>; + enable-active-high; + }; +}; + +&lpuart4 { + pinctrl-names = "default"; + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_lpuart4>; + status = "okay"; +}; + +&usdhc0 { + pinctrl-names = "default"; + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_usdhc0_cmd_data>, <&pinctrl_usdhc0_clk>, + <&pinctrl_usdhc0_cd>; + cd-gpios = <&gpio_ptc 10 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; + vmmc-supply = <®_vsd_3v3>; + status = "okay"; +}; + +&iomuxc1 { + pinctrl_lpuart4: lpuart4grp { + pinmux = < + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC3__LPUART4_RX + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC2__LPUART4_TX + >; + bias-pull-up; + }; + + pinctrl_usdhc0_cmd_data: usdhc0-cmd-data-grp { + pinmux = < + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD1__SDHC0_CMD + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD2__SDHC0_CLK + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD7__SDHC0_D3 + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD8__SDHC0_D2 + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD9__SDHC0_D1 + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD10__SDHC0_D0 + >; + drive-strength = <1>; + bias-pull-up; + }; + + pinctrl_usdhc0_clk: usdhc0-clk-grp { + pinmux = < + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD2__SDHC0_CLK + >; + drive-strength = <1>; + bias-pull-down; + }; + + pinctrl_usdhc0_cd: usdhc0-gpio-cd-grp { + pinmux = < + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTC10__PTC10 /* USDHC0 CD */ + >; + bias-pull-up; + }; + + pinctrl_usdhc0_rst: usdhc0-gpio-rst-grp { + pinmux = < + IMX7ULP_PAD_PTD0__PTD0 /* USDHC0 RST */ + >; + bias-pull-up; + }; +};
The NXP i.MX 7ULP Evaluation Kit (EVK) provides a platform for rapid evaluation of the i.MX 7ULP, which features NXP's advanced implementation of the Arm® Cortex®-A7 core, the Arm Cortex-M4 core, as well as a 3D and 2D Graphics Processing Units (GPUs). The EVK enables HDMI output for simple out-of-the-box to bring up but allows reconfiguration for MIPI displays. The EVK is designed as a System-On-Module(SOM) board that connects to an associated baseboard. The SOM provides 1 GB LPDDR3, 8 MB Quad SPI flash, Micro SD 3.0 card socket, WiFi/ Bluetooth capability, USB 2.0 OTG with Type C connector and an NXP PF1550 power management IC (PMIC). The baseboard provides additional capabilities including a full SD/MMC 3.0 card socket, audio codec, multiple sensors, an HDMI connector, and an alternate MIPI display connector. Additionally, the EVK facilitates software development with the ultimate goal of faster time to market through the support of both Linux® OS and AndroidTM rich operating systems, as well as FreeRTOS. This patch aims to support the preliminary booting up features as follows: GPIO LPUART FEC SD/MMC See more board details: https://www.nxp.com/products/processors-and-microcontrollers/ arm-based-processors-and-mcus/i.mx-applications-processors/ i.mx-7-processors/evaluation-kit-for-the-i.mx-7ulp-applications -processor:MCIMX7ULP-EVK Cc: Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org> Cc: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Cc: Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de> Cc: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com> Signed-off-by: Dong Aisheng <aisheng.dong@nxp.com> --- ChangeLog: v1->v2: * switch to SPDX license * pad name update * fix Character '_' not recommended in node name * separate from soc.dtsi file --- arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile | 2 + arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7ulp-evk.dts | 94 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+) create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/imx7ulp-evk.dts