When BLSPI1 (originally SPI0, later renamed in commit f82c48d46852
("arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: correct QUP peripheral labels")) was added,
the device node lacked respective pin configuration assignment. It
used also blsp0_spi function but that was probably the same mistake as
naming it SPI0.
Fixes: 5bf635621245 ("arm64: dts: ipq6018: Add a few device nodes")
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
index 1ba2eca33c7b..afc2dc79767d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
@@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ &blsp1_i2c3 {
&blsp1_spi1 {
cs-select = <0>;
+ pinctrl-0 = <&spi_0_pins>;
+ pinctrl-names = "default";
status = "okay";
flash@0 {
@@ -57,7 +59,7 @@ i2c_1_pins: i2c-1-pins {
spi_0_pins: spi-0-pins {
pins = "gpio38", "gpio39", "gpio40", "gpio41";
- function = "blsp0_spi";
+ function = "blsp1_spi";
drive-strength = <8>;
bias-pull-down;
};
--
2.34.1
On 26.09.2022 09:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> When BLSPI1 (originally SPI0, later renamed in commit f82c48d46852
> ("arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: correct QUP peripheral labels")) was added,
> the device node lacked respective pin configuration assignment. It
> used also blsp0_spi function but that was probably the same mistake as
> naming it SPI0.
>
> Fixes: 5bf635621245 ("arm64: dts: ipq6018: Add a few device nodes")
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> ---
Reviewed-by: Konrad Dybcio <[email protected]>
Konrad
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
> index 1ba2eca33c7b..afc2dc79767d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ &blsp1_i2c3 {
>
> &blsp1_spi1 {
> cs-select = <0>;
> + pinctrl-0 = <&spi_0_pins>;
> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> status = "okay";
>
> flash@0 {
> @@ -57,7 +59,7 @@ i2c_1_pins: i2c-1-pins {
>
> spi_0_pins: spi-0-pins {
> pins = "gpio38", "gpio39", "gpio40", "gpio41";
> - function = "blsp0_spi";
> + function = "blsp1_spi";
> drive-strength = <8>;
> bias-pull-down;
> };
On 26. 09. 2022. 09:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> When BLSPI1 (originally SPI0, later renamed in commit f82c48d46852
> ("arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: correct QUP peripheral labels")) was added,
> the device node lacked respective pin configuration assignment. It
> used also blsp0_spi function but that was probably the same mistake as
> naming it SPI0.
Hi,
Sorry for making it confusing, but "blsp0_spi" is the correct function.
Pinctrl driver and datasheets call functions blsp0-blps5, but usually in DT
we call the nodes blsp1-blsp6.
It would probably be better for me to rename the nodes to blsp0-5 instead.
Regards,
Robert
>
> Fixes: 5bf635621245 ("arm64: dts: ipq6018: Add a few device nodes")
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
> index 1ba2eca33c7b..afc2dc79767d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/ipq6018-cp01-c1.dts
> @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@ &blsp1_i2c3 {
>
> &blsp1_spi1 {
> cs-select = <0>;
> + pinctrl-0 = <&spi_0_pins>;
> + pinctrl-names = "default";
> status = "okay";
>
> flash@0 {
> @@ -57,7 +59,7 @@ i2c_1_pins: i2c-1-pins {
>
> spi_0_pins: spi-0-pins {
> pins = "gpio38", "gpio39", "gpio40", "gpio41";
> - function = "blsp0_spi";
> + function = "blsp1_spi";
> drive-strength = <8>;
> bias-pull-down;
> };
On 27. 09. 2022. 16:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 27/09/2022 16:01, Robert Marko wrote:
>> On 26. 09. 2022. 09:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> When BLSPI1 (originally SPI0, later renamed in commit f82c48d46852
>>> ("arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: correct QUP peripheral labels")) was added,
>>> the device node lacked respective pin configuration assignment. It
>>> used also blsp0_spi function but that was probably the same mistake as
>>> naming it SPI0.
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sorry for making it confusing, but "blsp0_spi" is the correct function.
>> Pinctrl driver and datasheets call functions blsp0-blps5, but usually in DT
>> we call the nodes blsp1-blsp6.
>>
>> It would probably be better for me to rename the nodes to blsp0-5 instead.
> OK, so instead I will add blsp0_spi to the bindings.
Can you add blsp0_uart and blsp0_i2c as well?
All 6 of the QUP-s have same features.
I am adding MDIO to CP01, so I can add mdc and mdio to bindings
as they are lacking there as well.
Regards,
Robert
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
On 27/09/2022 17:20, Robert Marko wrote:
>
> On 27. 09. 2022. 16:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 27/09/2022 16:01, Robert Marko wrote:
>>> On 26. 09. 2022. 09:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> When BLSPI1 (originally SPI0, later renamed in commit f82c48d46852
>>>> ("arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: correct QUP peripheral labels")) was added,
>>>> the device node lacked respective pin configuration assignment. It
>>>> used also blsp0_spi function but that was probably the same mistake as
>>>> naming it SPI0.
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sorry for making it confusing, but "blsp0_spi" is the correct function.
>>> Pinctrl driver and datasheets call functions blsp0-blps5, but usually in DT
>>> we call the nodes blsp1-blsp6.
>>>
>>> It would probably be better for me to rename the nodes to blsp0-5 instead.
>> OK, so instead I will add blsp0_spi to the bindings.
>
> Can you add blsp0_uart and blsp0_i2c as well?
> All 6 of the QUP-s have same features.
Sure
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On 27/09/2022 16:01, Robert Marko wrote:
>
> On 26. 09. 2022. 09:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> When BLSPI1 (originally SPI0, later renamed in commit f82c48d46852
>> ("arm64: dts: qcom: ipq6018: correct QUP peripheral labels")) was added,
>> the device node lacked respective pin configuration assignment. It
>> used also blsp0_spi function but that was probably the same mistake as
>> naming it SPI0.
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for making it confusing, but "blsp0_spi" is the correct function.
> Pinctrl driver and datasheets call functions blsp0-blps5, but usually in DT
> we call the nodes blsp1-blsp6.
>
> It would probably be better for me to rename the nodes to blsp0-5 instead.
OK, so instead I will add blsp0_spi to the bindings.
Best regards,
Krzysztof