[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f41102bb-134a-50cc-bb98-7950260c7aa6@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 23:35:26 +0530
From: "Kumar, Udit" <u-kumar1@...com>
To: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@...com>
CC: Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Tero Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hari Nagalla <hnagalla@...com>,
Dasnavis Sabiya <sabiya.d@...tralsolutions.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] arm64: dts: ti: k3-am69-sk: Add phase tags marking
On 8/11/2023 11:24 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 23:05-20230811, Kumar, Udit wrote:
>> Hi Apurva
>>
>> On 8/11/2023 8:46 PM, Apurva Nandan wrote:
>>> bootph-all as phase tag was added to dt-schema
>>> (dtschema/schemas/bootph.yaml) to cover U-Boot challenges with DT.
>>> That's why add it also to Linux to be aligned with bootloader requirement.
>>>
>>> wkup_uart0, wkup_i2c0, mcu_uart0, main_uart8, main_sdhci0 and main_sdhci1
>>> are required for bootloader operation on TI K3 AM69-SK EVM. These IPs
>>> along with pinmuxes need to be marked for all bootloader phases, hence add
>>> bootph-all to these nodes in kernel dts.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@...com>
>>> ---
>>> [...]
>>> &wkup_uart0 {
>>> + bootph-all;
>>> /* Firmware usage */
>>> status = "reserved";
>>> pinctrl-names = "default";
>> I am not sure, if you want to treat wkup_uart in same way as you are
>> treating secure_proxy_mcu in patch 1 of this series.
> You should'nt. wkup_uart0 or what ever peripherals are specifically
> board dependent. This patch does it the right way. I do have other
> platforms on other K3 SoCs where the TIFS uart logs are actually
> disabled.
Sorry, if i was not clear in my previous response.
This node is marked as reserved, adding bootph is not adding any value.
We can drop bootph from this node here.
>> IMO, where we are making this node status is okay, mark booth-all at that
>> place only.
>>
>> Otherwise for rest of series
>>
>> LGTM
> Do i take that as a Reviewed-by: for the series?
With above change,
Reviewed-by: Udit Kumar <u-kumar1@...com>
>>
> [...]
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists