[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75b78eaf-9b13-477c-bf02-4e9837a25dd4@linaro.org>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 10:22:42 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Alexandre Mergnat <amergnat@...libre.com>,
AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@...labora.com>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
MandyJH Liu <mandyjh.liu@...iatek.com>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] arm64: dts: mediatek: mt8365: use a specific SCPSYS
compatible
On 20/05/2024 17:23, Alexandre Mergnat wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
>
> On 20/05/2024 12:12, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>> Il 20/05/24 12:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>> On 20/05/2024 11:55, AngeloGioacchino Del Regno wrote:
>>>> Il 18/05/24 23:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski ha scritto:
>>>>> SoCs should use dedicated compatibles for each of their syscon nodes to
>>>>> precisely describe the block. Using an incorrect compatible does not
>>>>> allow to properly match/validate children of the syscon device. Replace
>>>>> SYSCFG compatible, which does not have children, with a new dedicated
>>>>> one for SCPSYS block.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
>>>>
>>>> Technically, that's not a SCPSYS block, but called SYSCFG in MT8365, but the
>>>> meaning and the functioning is the same, so it's fine for me.
>>>
>>> So there are two syscfg blocks? With exactly the same set of registers
>>> or different?
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure about that, I don't have the MT8365 datasheet...
>>
>> Adding Alexandre to the loop - I think he can clarify as he should have the
>> required documentation.
>
> Unfortunately, The SCPSYS (@10006000) isn't documented, but according to the functionnal
> specification, it seems to have only one block.
>
> I don't have the history why SYSCFG instead of SCPSYS.
>
> I've tested your serie and have a regression at the kernel boot time:
> [ 7.738117] mtk-power-controller 10006000.syscon:power-controller: Failed to create device link
> (0x180) with 14000000.syscon
>
> It's related to your patch 3/4.
I don't see how this could be related. The error is mentioning entirely
different node - mmsys. No driver binds to 10006000.syscon, except the
MFD syscon of course, so my change should have zero effect on drivers.
The mtk-pm-domains (so child of patch affected in 3/4) only takes regmap
from the parent, so the cells again are not related.
Just to be sure: you are testing mainline or next, without any other
patches on top except mine?
>
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists