linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv1 3/8] ARM: dts: at91: sam9x60: Add flexcom definitions

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 15 Nov 2022 05:33:22 +0000
From:   <Durai.ManickamKR@...rochip.com>
To:     <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>, <Cristian.Birsan@...rochip.com>,
        <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>, <Hari.PrasathGE@...rochip.com>,
        <davem@...emloft.net>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <arnd@...db.de>, <olof@...om.net>,
        <soc@...nel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <Manikandan.M@...rochip.com>,
        <Kavyasree.Kotagiri@...rochip.com>, <Horatiu.Vultur@...rochip.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv1 3/8] ARM: dts: at91: sam9x60: Add flexcom definitions

On 08/11/22 19:07, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> On 31/10/2022 at 04:36, Durai Manickam KR wrote:
>> Add the flexcom definitions to the SoC specifc DTSI file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Durai Manickam KR <durai.manickamkr@...rochip.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <Hari.PrasathGE@...rochip.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Manikandan M <manikandan.m@...rochip.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/sam9x60.dtsi | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>   1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sam9x60.dtsi 
>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sam9x60.dtsi
>> index ef07d281a3db..fd4f5d43f7bb 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/sam9x60.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/sam9x60.dtsi
>
> [..]
>
>> @@ -180,6 +190,26 @@ flx5: flexcom@...04000 {
>>                   #size-cells = <1>;
>>                   ranges = <0x0 0xf0004000 0x800>;
>>                   status = "disabled";
>> +
>> +                uart5: serial@200 {
>> +                    compatible = "microchip,sam9x60-usart", 
>> "atmel,at91sam9260-usart";
>> +                    reg = <0x200 0x200>;
>> +                    interrupts = <14 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH 7>;
>> +                    dmas = <&dma0
>> +                        (AT91_XDMAC_DT_MEM_IF(0) |
>> +                         AT91_XDMAC_DT_PER_IF(1) |
>> +                         AT91_XDMAC_DT_PERID(10))>,
>> +                        <&dma0
>> +                        (AT91_XDMAC_DT_MEM_IF(0) |
>> +                         AT91_XDMAC_DT_PER_IF(1) |
>> +                         AT91_XDMAC_DT_PERID(11))>;
>> +                    dma-names = "tx", "rx";
>> +                    clocks = <&pmc PMC_TYPE_PERIPHERAL 14>;
>> +                    clock-names = "usart";
>> +                    atmel,use-dma-rx;
>> +                    atmel,use-dma-tx;
>
> Isn't "atmel,fifo-size = <16>;" missing in this added definition?
> Hi Nicolas,
Yes you are right. It is added as separate patch in the same patch series.
>> +                    status = "disabled";
>> +                };
>>               };
>>                 dma0: dma-controller@...08000 {
>
> [..]
>
> Regards,
>   Nicolas
>