[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54C5FBC3.7030903@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 09:33:07 +0100
From: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
To: monstr@...str.eu, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
CC: devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@...inx.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Ola Jeppson <ola@...pteva.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: zynq: DT: Add USB to device tree
Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek:
> On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 03.12.2014 um 09:39 schrieb Michal Simek:
>>> On 12/02/2014 05:07 PM, Soren Brinkmann wrote:
>>>> Add USB nodes to zc702, zc706 and zed device trees.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v3:
>>>> - rename phy nodes: usb_phy -> phy0
>>>> - rebased onto zynq/dt
>>>> v2:
>>>> - remove '@0' from phy node name
>>>> - don't add bogus space
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts | 11 +++++++++++
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+)
>> [...]
>>>
>>> Applied to zynq/dt.
>>
>> Hm, I don't see this patch in linux-next next-20150123...
>>
>> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to
>> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly:
>>
>> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap:
>> f090e100 op: f090e140
>> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral
>> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT
>> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap:
>> f0910100 op: f0910140
>> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral
>>
>> Am I missing any other patches or config options?
>> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug
>> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.)
>
> Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff?
No, happened without as well.
Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this:
[ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios
[ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup
[ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios'
property
of node '/phy0[0]'
[ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio'
property
of node '/phy0[0]'
[ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup
[ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed
[ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO
[ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2
[ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios
[ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup
[ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios'
property
of node '/phy1[0]'
[ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio'
property of node '/phy1[0]'
[ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup
[ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed
[ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO
[ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2
So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a
property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two
MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified?
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu,
Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (820 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists