| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d3322b244221be7cb4802d6448c7588c@codeaurora.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2021 12:51:31 +0530
From: sbhanu@...eaurora.org
To: Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: adrian.hunter@...el.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, asutoshd@...eaurora.org,
stummala@...eaurora.org, vbadigan@...eaurora.org,
rampraka@...eaurora.org, sayalil@...eaurora.org,
sartgarg@...eaurora.org, rnayak@...eaurora.org,
saiprakash.ranjan@...eaurora.org, sibis@...eaurora.org,
okukatla@...eaurora.org, djakov@...nel.org, cang@...eaurora.org,
pragalla@...eaurora.org, nitirawa@...eaurora.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add nodes for eMMC and SD
card
On 2021-06-23 01:47, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Shaik Sajida Bhanu (2021-06-16 02:23:01)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts
>> index 3900cfc..0f63cac 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts
>> @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>> #include <dt-bindings/iio/qcom,spmi-adc7-pmr735b.h>
>> #include <dt-bindings/iio/qcom,spmi-adc7-pm8350.h>
>> #include <dt-bindings/iio/qcom,spmi-adc7-pmk8350.h>
>> +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
>
> The letter g comes before i, please move this higher in the list.
Sure i will adrress this in my next patchset.
>
>> #include "sc7280.dtsi"
>> #include "pm7325.dtsi"
>> #include "pmr735a.dtsi"
>> @@ -272,6 +273,34 @@
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>>
>> +&sdhc_1 {
>> + status = "okay";
>> +
>> + pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&sdc1_on>;
>> + pinctrl-1 = <&sdc1_off>;
>> +
>> + non-removable;
>> + no-sd;
>> + no-sdio;
>> +
>> + vmmc-supply = <&vreg_l7b_2p9>;
>> + vqmmc-supply = <&vreg_l19b_1p8>;
>> +};
>> +
>> +&sdhc_2 {
>> + status = "okay";
>> +
>> + pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep";
>> + pinctrl-0 = <&sdc2_on>;
>> + pinctrl-1 = <&sdc2_off>;
>> +
>> + vmmc-supply = <&vreg_l9c_2p9>;
>> + vqmmc-supply = <&vreg_l6c_2p9>;
>> +
>> + cd-gpios = <&tlmm 91 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
>> +};
>> +
>> &uart5 {
>> status = "okay";
>> };
>> @@ -291,3 +320,55 @@
>> bias-pull-up;
>> };
>> };
>> +
>> +&tlmm {
>> + sdc1_on: sdc1-on {
>> + clk {
>> + pins = "sdc1_clk";
>
> Can the pins property at least be moved into sc7280.dtsi? Then this can
> add bias and drive strength overrides in the board file?
Sure i will adrress this in my next patchset.
>
>> + bias-disable;
>> + drive-strength = <16>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + cmd {
>> + pins = "sdc1_cmd";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + data {
>> + pins = "sdc1_data";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + rclk {
>> + pins = "sdc1_rclk";
>> + bias-pull-down;
>> + };
>> + };
>> +
>> + sdc2_on: sdc2-on {
>> + clk {
>> + pins = "sdc2_clk";
>> + bias-disable;
>> + drive-strength = <16>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + cmd {
>> + pins = "sdc2_cmd";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + data {
>> + pins = "sdc2_data";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + drive-strength = <10>;
>> + };
>> +
>> + sd-cd {
>> + pins = "gpio91";
>> + bias-pull-up;
>> + };
>> + };
>> +};
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> index d600bca..16d8e17 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi
>> @@ -974,6 +1033,51 @@
>> };
>> };
>>
>> + sdhc_2: sdhci@...4000 {
>> + compatible = "qcom,sc7280-sdhci",
>> "qcom,sdhci-msm-v5";
>> + status = "disabled";
>> +
>> + reg = <0 0x08804000 0 0x1000>;
>> +
>> + iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x100 0x0>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 207
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
>> + <GIC_SPI 223
>> IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + interrupt-names = "hc_irq", "pwr_irq";
>> +
>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_APPS_CLK>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_AHB_CLK>,
>> + <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>;
>> + clock-names = "core", "iface", "xo";
>> + interconnects = <&aggre1_noc MASTER_SDCC_2 0
>> &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 0>,
>> + <&gem_noc MASTER_APPSS_PROC 0
>> &cnoc2 SLAVE_SDCC_2 0>;
>> + interconnect-names = "sdhc-ddr","cpu-sdhc";
>> + power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7280_CX>;
>> + operating-points-v2 = <&sdhc2_opp_table>;
>> +
>> + bus-width = <4>;
>> +
>> + qcom,dll-config = <0x0007642c>;
>> +
>> + sdhc2_opp_table: sdhc2-opp-table {
>
> Any reason the node shouldn't be called opp-table?
Yes, it can be called but for consistency, we are using the same node
names as that on sc7180.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists