Message ID | 20231228125805.661725-1-tudor.ambarus@linaro.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | GS101 Oriole: CMU_PERIC0 support and USI updates | expand |
On 12/29/23 08:04, Tudor Ambarus wrote: > > > On 12/28/23 14:04, André Draszik wrote: >> Hi Tudor, > > Hi! > >> >> On Thu, 2023-12-28 at 12:58 +0000, Tudor Ambarus wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi >>> index 0e5b1b490b0b..c6ae33016992 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/google/gs101.dtsi >>> @@ -354,6 +354,35 @@ pinctrl_peric0: pinctrl@10840000 { >>> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 625 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>; >>> }; >>> >>> + usi8: usi@109700c0 { >>> + compatible = "google,gs101-usi", >>> + "samsung,exynos850-usi"; >>> + reg = <0x109700c0 0x20>; >>> + ranges; >>> + #address-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <1>; >>> + clocks = <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7>, >>> + <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK>; >>> + clock-names = "pclk", "ipclk"; >> >> Given the clock-names, shouldn't the clock indices be the other way around? Also see below. > > You're right, they should have been the other way around! Didn't make > any difference at testing because the usi driver uses > clk_bulk_prepare_enable(), what matters is the order of clocks in the > i2c node, and those are fine. > >> >>> + samsung,sysreg = <&sysreg_peric0 0x101c>; >>> + status = "disabled"; >>> + >>> + hsi2c_8: i2c@10970000 { >>> + compatible = "google,gs101-hsi2c", >>> + "samsung,exynosautov9-hsi2c"; >>> + reg = <0x10970000 0xc0>; >>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 642 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 0>; >>> + #address-cells = <1>; >>> + #size-cells = <0>; >>> + pinctrl-names = "default"; >>> + pinctrl-0 = <&hsi2c8_bus>; >>> + clocks = <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7>, >>> + <&cmu_peric0 CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK>; >>> + clock-names = "hsi2c", "hsi2c_pclk"; >> >> Here, pclk == CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_CLK_PERIC0_USI8_USI_CLK (which is correct, I believe), whereas >> above pclk == CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PERIC0_TOP0_IPCLK_7 >> > > Indeed, I'll reverse the order for the USI clocks and do some more > testing. Thanks! FYI, I reversed the order of the USI clocks, tested again with the eeprom at 100 KHz and 10KHz, everything went fine. I'll wait for some other feedback and probably submit a v3 next week. Cheers, ta