Re: [PATCH] arm64: dts: sc7280: Add qspi, qupv3_0 and qupv3_1 nodes

[rojay@codeaurora.org]

Hi Doug,

On 2021-03-12 03:24, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:41 PM Roja Rani Yarubandi
> <rojay@codeaurora.org> wrote:
>> 
>> +&qspi_cs0 {
>> +       pinconf {
>> +               pins = "gpio15";
>> +               bias-disable;
>> +       };
> 
> The "pinconf" / "pinmux" subnode shouldn't be used for new SoCs. See:
> 
> http://lore.kernel.org/r/CAD=FV=UY_AFRrAY0tef5jP698LEng6oN652LcX3B4nG=aWh0gA@mail.gmail.com
> 
> ...same feedback for this whole patch.
> 

Ok, will do the changes.

>> +                       qup_spi0_default: qup-spi0-default {
>> +                               pinmux {
>> +                                       pins = "gpio0", "gpio1",
>> +                                              "gpio2", "gpio3";
>> +                                       function = "qup00";
>> +                               };
>> +                       };
> 
> Please split these SPI nodes as per the thread above, like:
> 
> tlmm: pinctrl@... {
>   qup_spi0_data_clk: qup-spi0-data-clk {
>     pins = "gpio0", "gpio1", "gpio2";
>     function = "qup0";
>   };
> 
>   qup_spi0_cs: qup-spi0-cs {
>     pins = "gpio3";
>     function = "qup0";
>   };
> 
>   qup_spi0_cs_gpio: qup-spi0-cs-gpio {
>     pins = "gpio3";
>     function = "gpio";
>   };
> };
> 
> 
>> +                       qup_uart0_default: qup-uart0-default {
>> +                               pinmux {
>> +                                       pins = "gpio0", "gpio1",
>> +                                              "gpio2", "gpio3";
>> +                                       function = "qup00";
>> +                               };
>> +                       };
> 
> I suspect things would actually be cleaner if we broke the uart lines
> up since the boards tend to have to adjust pulls differently for each
> line. With the new "no pinconf / pinmux" world it's pretty clean. It's
> obviously up to Bjorn, but if it were me I'd request this in the SoC
> file:
> 
> qup_uart0_cts: qup-uart0-cts {
>   pins = "...";
>   function = "qup00";
> };
> 
> qup_uart0_rts: qup-uart0-rts {
>   pins = "...";
>   function = "qup00";
> };
> 
> qup_uart0_rx: qup-uart0-rx {
>   pins = "...";
>   function = "qup00";
> };
> 
> qup_uart0_tx: qup-uart0-tx {
>   pins = "...";
>   function = "qup00";
> };
> 
> ...and now when the board file wants to adjust the pulls they can just
> reference each one:
> 
> /*
>  * Comments about why the UART0 pulls make sense.
>  * Blah blah blah.
>  */
> 
> &qup_uart0_cts {
>   bias-pull-down;
> };
> 
> &qup_uart0_rts {
>   drive-strength = <2>;
>   bias-disable;
> };
> 
> &qup_uart0_rx {
>   bias-pull-up;
> };
> 
> &qup_uart0_tx {
>   drive-strength = <2>;
>   bias-disable;
> };
> 
> 
>> +               qspi: spi@88dc000 {
> 
> I believe the qspi node is sorted incorrectly. When I apply this to
> the top of the Qualcomm tree it shows up after the "apps_smmu:
> iommu@15000000" node. However:
> 
> 0x088dc000 < 0x15000000
> 
> ...which means it should be _before_.
> 

Sure, will move before apps_smmu

Thanks,
Roja
> -Doug