2022-09-14 09:42:11

by Rafał Miłecki

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [PATCH] mips: bmips: bcm63268: add TWD block binding

From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>

TWD is an MFD block that contains timers, watchdog & some clocks / reset
controller.

Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
---
It's the same patch as in the
[PATCH RFC RFT] mips: bmips: bcm63268: add TWD block binding
(sent back in January)
---
arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi | 18 ++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi b/arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi
index c3ce49ec675f..8926417a8fbc 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi
@@ -105,14 +105,20 @@ periph_intc: interrupt-controller@10000020 {
interrupts = <2>, <3>;
};

- wdt: watchdog@1000009c {
- compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
- reg = <0x1000009c 0xc>;
+ timer-mfd@10000080 {
+ compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-twd", "simple-mfd", "syscon";
+ reg = <0x10000080 0x30>;
+ ranges = <0x0 0x10000080 0x30>;

- clocks = <&periph_osc>;
- clock-names = "refclk";
+ wdt: watchdog@1c {
+ compatible = "brcm,bcm7038-wdt";
+ reg = <0x1c 0xc>;

- timeout-sec = <30>;
+ clocks = <&periph_osc>;
+ clock-names = "refclk";
+
+ timeout-sec = <30>;
+ };
};

uart0: serial@10000180 {
--
2.34.1


2022-09-19 15:13:44

by Thomas Bogendoerfer

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mips: bmips: bcm63268: add TWD block binding

On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 11:10:45AM +0200, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
> From: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
>
> TWD is an MFD block that contains timers, watchdog & some clocks / reset
> controller.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
> ---
> It's the same patch as in the
> [PATCH RFC RFT] mips: bmips: bcm63268: add TWD block binding
> (sent back in January)
> ---
> arch/mips/boot/dts/brcm/bcm63268.dtsi | 18 ++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

applied to mips-next.

Thomas.

--
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]