[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20241029102825.fhyuk2rrjusysy7i@uda0497581>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 15:58:25 +0530
From: Manorit Chawdhry <m-chawdhry@...com>
To: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
CC: Nishanth Menon <nm@...com>, Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@...com>,
Tero
Kristo <kristo@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof
Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Keerthy
<j-keerthy@...com>,
Neha Malcom Francis <n-francis@...com>,
Eric Chanudet
<echanude@...hat.com>,
Enric Balletbo <eballetb@...hat.com>, Udit Kumar
<u-kumar1@...com>,
Beleswar Prasad Padhi <b-padhi@...com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j784s4: Mark tps659413
regulators as bootph-all
Hi Andrew,
On 09:56-20241010, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2024 at 12:14:50PM GMT, Andrew Halaney wrote:
> > This series marks tps659413's regulators as bootph-all in order for
> > the nodes (and parent nodes) to be accessible during MCU's u-boot SPL.
> >
> > This in turn is desired since the tps659413 needs its MCU ESM
> > state machine setup in order for the watchdog to reset the board.
> >
> > This took me a little while to track down, as enabling the ESM, TPS6594,
> > etc in u-boot would result in the below boot failure:
> >
> > U-Boot SPL 2024.10-rc4-00007-g44b12cbcd1b3-dirty (Sep 06 2024 - 14:25:52 -0500)
> > SYSFW ABI: 3.1 (firmware rev 0x0009 '9.2.4--v09.02.04 (Kool Koala)')
> > Initialized 4 DRAM controllers
> > SPL initial stack usage: 13408 bytes
> > ### ERROR ### Please RESET the board ###
> >
> > Which turns out to actually have failed far earlier in spl_early_init(),
> > due to these nodes not being accessible in u-boot. That's hard to tell
> > though since console isn't setup until later (and for that reason I
> > think spl_early_init()'s return value in j784s4_init.c isn't
> > evaluated since a panic() at that point would leave a user with *no*
> > information at all).
> >
> > I've tested this in conjunction with a u-boot series which I'll link in
> > a follow-up response on the k3-j784s4-evm. I'd appreciate someone testing
> > on the k3-am69-sk at a minimum, as it should suffer the same fate if things
> > aren't setup appropriately.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@...hat.com>
> > ---
> > Changes in v3:
> > - Added Udit's Tested-by tags
> > - Reordered bootph-all to align with dts-coding-style (Beleswar)
> > - Link to v2: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240911-j784s4-tps6594-bootph-v2-0-a83526264ab1@redhat.com
>
> This applies fine still on linux-next, any chance this could be picked
> up?
You might've to re-spin the series, I saw that [0] got merged and you
might've to put j784s4 related changes in k3-j784s4-j742s2-evm-common.dtsi
now instead.
Regards,
Manorit
[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20240902-b4-upstream-j742s2-v6-0-6a7aa2736797@ti.com/
>
> The associated[0] u-boot change is dependent on this and it would be
> nice to get the wdog working on mainline u-boot + linux.
>
> [0] https://lore.kernel.org/all/3bf2177d-178f-46bf-abfe-6f00a52c623b@ti.com/
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists