Correct the reg address of mdio node to match unit address. Assume the
reg is not correct and unit address was correct, because there is
already node using the existing reg 0x110102d4.
sparx5.dtsi:443.25-451.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /axi@600000000/mdio@6110102f8: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "6110102d4"
Fixes: d0f482bb06f9 ("arm64: dts: sparx5: Add the Sparx5 switch node")
Reviewed-by: Horatiu Vultur <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Not tested on hardware
Changes in v2:
1. Add tags.
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi
index 24075cd91420..5d820da8c69d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi
@@ -447,7 +447,7 @@ mdio2: mdio@6110102f8 {
pinctrl-names = "default";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
- reg = <0x6 0x110102d4 0x24>;
+ reg = <0x6 0x110102f8 0x24>;
};
mdio3: mdio@61101031c {
--
2.34.1
Unit address should match "reg" property, as reported by dtc W=1
warnings:
sparx5.dtsi:463.27-468.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /axi@600000000/serdes@10808000: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "610808000"
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
1. None
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi
index 5d820da8c69d..c3029e0abacc 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5.dtsi
@@ -460,7 +460,7 @@ mdio3: mdio@61101031c {
reg = <0x6 0x1101031c 0x24>;
};
- serdes: serdes@10808000 {
+ serdes: serdes@610808000 {
compatible = "microchip,sparx5-serdes";
#phy-cells = <1>;
clocks = <&sys_clk>;
--
2.34.1
The children of I2C mux should be named "i2c", according to DT schema
and bindings, and they should have unit address.
This fixes dtbs_check warnings like:
sparx5_pcb134_emmc.dtb: i2c0-imux@0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('#address-cells', '#size-cells', 'i2c_sfp1', ...
and dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi:548.23-555.4: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /axi@600000000/sfp-eth12: missing or empty reg/ranges property
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
1. None
---
.../dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi | 40 +++++++++----------
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
index f3e226de5e5e..e816e6e9d62d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
@@ -427,62 +427,62 @@ &i2c0_imux {
pinctrl-10 = <&i2cmux_10>;
pinctrl-11 = <&i2cmux_11>;
pinctrl-12 = <&i2cmux_pins_i>;
- i2c_sfp1: i2c_sfp1 {
+ i2c_sfp1: i2c@0 {
reg = <0x0>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp2: i2c_sfp2 {
+ i2c_sfp2: i2c@1 {
reg = <0x1>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp3: i2c_sfp3 {
+ i2c_sfp3: i2c@2 {
reg = <0x2>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp4: i2c_sfp4 {
+ i2c_sfp4: i2c@3 {
reg = <0x3>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp5: i2c_sfp5 {
+ i2c_sfp5: i2c@4 {
reg = <0x4>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp6: i2c_sfp6 {
+ i2c_sfp6: i2c@5 {
reg = <0x5>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp7: i2c_sfp7 {
+ i2c_sfp7: i2c@6 {
reg = <0x6>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp8: i2c_sfp8 {
+ i2c_sfp8: i2c@7 {
reg = <0x7>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp9: i2c_sfp9 {
+ i2c_sfp9: i2c@8 {
reg = <0x8>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp10: i2c_sfp10 {
+ i2c_sfp10: i2c@9 {
reg = <0x9>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp11: i2c_sfp11 {
+ i2c_sfp11: i2c@a {
reg = <0xa>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp12: i2c_sfp12 {
+ i2c_sfp12: i2c@b {
reg = <0xb>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
@@ -495,42 +495,42 @@ &gpio 60 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH
&gpio 61 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH
&gpio 54 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
idle-state = <0x8>;
- i2c_sfp13: i2c_sfp13 {
+ i2c_sfp13: i2c@0 {
reg = <0x0>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp14: i2c_sfp14 {
+ i2c_sfp14: i2c@1 {
reg = <0x1>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp15: i2c_sfp15 {
+ i2c_sfp15: i2c@2 {
reg = <0x2>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp16: i2c_sfp16 {
+ i2c_sfp16: i2c@3 {
reg = <0x3>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp17: i2c_sfp17 {
+ i2c_sfp17: i2c@4 {
reg = <0x4>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp18: i2c_sfp18 {
+ i2c_sfp18: i2c@5 {
reg = <0x5>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp19: i2c_sfp19 {
+ i2c_sfp19: i2c@6 {
reg = <0x6>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp20: i2c_sfp20 {
+ i2c_sfp20: i2c@7 {
reg = <0x7>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
--
2.34.1
The children of I2C mux should be named "i2c", according to DT schema
and bindings, and they should have unit address.
This fixes dtbs_check warnings like:
sparx5_pcb135.dtb: i2c0-imux@0: Unevaluated properties are not allowed ('#address-cells', '#size-cells', 'i2c_sfp1', 'i2c_sfp2', 'i2c_sfp3', 'i2c_sfp4' were unexpected)
and dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi:172.23-180.4: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /axi@600000000/sfp-eth60: missing or empty reg/ranges property
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
1. None
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi | 8 ++++----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
index 82ce007d9959..bf51a6e11cf1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
@@ -146,22 +146,22 @@ &i2c0_imux {
pinctrl-2 = <&i2cmux_s31>;
pinctrl-3 = <&i2cmux_s32>;
pinctrl-4 = <&i2cmux_pins_i>;
- i2c_sfp1: i2c_sfp1 {
+ i2c_sfp1: i2c@0 {
reg = <0x0>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp2: i2c_sfp2 {
+ i2c_sfp2: i2c@1 {
reg = <0x1>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp3: i2c_sfp3 {
+ i2c_sfp3: i2c@2 {
reg = <0x2>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
};
- i2c_sfp4: i2c_sfp4 {
+ i2c_sfp4: i2c@3 {
reg = <0x3>;
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
--
2.34.1
DT schema expects node names to match certain. This fixes dtbs_check
warnings like:
sparx5_pcb134_emmc.dtb: i2c0-emux@0: $nodename:0: 'i2c0-emux@0' does not match '^(i2c-?)?mux'
and dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi:398.25-403.4: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): /axi@600000000/i2c0-imux@0: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /axi@600000000/i2c0-emux@0)
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
1. None
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
index e816e6e9d62d..cafec6ef0d0f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
@@ -395,13 +395,13 @@ i2cmux_11: i2cmux-11-pins {
};
&axi {
- i2c0_imux: i2c0-imux@0 {
+ i2c0_imux: i2c-mux-0 {
compatible = "i2c-mux-pinctrl";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
i2c-parent = <&i2c0>;
};
- i2c0_emux: i2c0-emux@0 {
+ i2c0_emux: i2c-mux-1 {
compatible = "i2c-mux-gpio";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
--
2.34.1
GPIO leds should not have unit addresses (no "reg" property), as
reported by dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi:18.9-22.5: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /leds/led@0: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
1. None
---
.../boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi | 16 ++++++++--------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
index 860975ffe0a1..20016efb3656 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
@@ -15,42 +15,42 @@ gpio-restart {
leds {
compatible = "gpio-leds";
- led@0 {
+ led-0 {
label = "eth60:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 28 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@1 {
+ led-1 {
label = "eth60:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 28 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@2 {
+ led-2 {
label = "eth61:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 29 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@3 {
+ led-3 {
label = "eth61:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 29 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@4 {
+ led-4 {
label = "eth62:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 30 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@5 {
+ led-5 {
label = "eth62:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 30 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@6 {
+ led-6 {
label = "eth63:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 31 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@7 {
+ led-7 {
label = "eth63:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 31 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
default-state = "off";
--
2.34.1
Since beginning the DTS extended the SPI0 in two places adding two SPI
muxes, each with same SPI NOR flash. Both used exactly the same
chip-selects, so this was clearly buggy code. Then in commit
d0f482bb06f9 ("arm64: dts: sparx5: Add the Sparx5 switch node") one SPI
mux was removed, while keeping the SPI NOR flash node.
This still leaves duplicated SPI nodes under same chip select 0,
reported by dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi:277.10-281.4: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/flash@0: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/spi@0)
Steen Hegelund confirmed that in fact there is a SPI mux, thus remove
the duplicated node without the mux.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Not tested on hardware
Changes in v2:
1. Remove SPI node without mux.
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi | 9 ---------
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
index f165a409bc1d..2c5574734c9e 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
@@ -272,15 +272,6 @@ gpio@1 {
};
};
-&spi0 {
- status = "okay";
- flash@0 {
- compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
- spi-max-frequency = <8000000>;
- reg = <0>;
- };
-};
-
&spi0 {
status = "okay";
spi@0 {
--
2.34.1
Since beginning the DTS extended the SPI0 in two places adding two SPI
muxes, each with same SPI NOR flash. Both used exactly the same
chip-selects, so this was clearly buggy code. Then in commit
d0f482bb06f9 ("arm64: dts: sparx5: Add the Sparx5 switch node") one SPI
mux was removed, while keeping the SPI NOR flash node.
This still leaves duplicated SPI nodes under same chip select 0,
reported by dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi:92.10-96.4: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/flash@0: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/spi@0)
Steen Hegelund confirmed that in fact there is a SPI mux, thus remove
the duplicated node without the mux.
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Not tested on hardware
Changes in v2:
1. Remove SPI node without mux.
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi | 9 ---------
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
index 20016efb3656..af2f1831f07f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
@@ -87,15 +87,6 @@ i2cmux_s32: i2cmux-3-pins {
};
};
-&spi0 {
- status = "okay";
- flash@0 {
- compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
- spi-max-frequency = <8000000>;
- reg = <0>;
- };
-};
-
&spi0 {
status = "okay";
spi@0 {
--
2.34.1
DT schema expects node names to match certain. This fixes dtbs_check
warnings like:
sparx5_pcb135_emmc.dtb: i2c0-imux@0: $nodename:0: 'i2c0-imux@0' does not match '^(i2c-?)?mux'
and dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi:132.25-137.4: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /axi@600000000/i2c0-imux@0: missing or empty reg/ranges property
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
1. None
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
index bf51a6e11cf1..860975ffe0a1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ &sgpio2 {
};
&axi {
- i2c0_imux: i2c0-imux@0 {
+ i2c0_imux: i2c-mux {
compatible = "i2c-mux-pinctrl";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <0>;
--
2.34.1
GPIO leds should not have unit addresses (no "reg" property), as
reported by dtc W=1 warnings:
sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi:18.9-21.5: Warning (unit_address_vs_reg): /leds/led@0: node has a unit name, but no reg or ranges property
Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
---
Changes in v2:
1. None
---
.../dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi | 96 +++++++++----------
1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
index cafec6ef0d0f..f165a409bc1d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
@@ -15,234 +15,234 @@ gpio-restart {
leds {
compatible = "gpio-leds";
- led@0 {
+ led-0 {
label = "twr0:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 8 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@1 {
+ led-1 {
label = "twr0:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 8 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@2 {
+ led-2 {
label = "twr1:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 9 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@3 {
+ led-3 {
label = "twr1:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 9 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@4 {
+ led-4 {
label = "twr2:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 10 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@5 {
+ led-5 {
label = "twr2:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 10 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@6 {
+ led-6 {
label = "twr3:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 11 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@7 {
+ led-7 {
label = "twr3:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 11 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
- led@8 {
+ led-8 {
label = "eth12:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 12 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@9 {
+ led-9 {
label = "eth12:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 12 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@10 {
+ led-10 {
label = "eth13:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 13 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@11 {
+ led-11 {
label = "eth13:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 13 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@12 {
+ led-12 {
label = "eth14:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 14 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@13 {
+ led-13 {
label = "eth14:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 14 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@14 {
+ led-14 {
label = "eth15:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 15 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@15 {
+ led-15 {
label = "eth15:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out0 15 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@16 {
+ led-16 {
label = "eth48:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 16 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@17 {
+ led-17 {
label = "eth48:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 16 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@18 {
+ led-18 {
label = "eth49:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 17 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@19 {
+ led-19 {
label = "eth49:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 17 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@20 {
+ led-20 {
label = "eth50:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 18 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@21 {
+ led-21 {
label = "eth50:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 18 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@22 {
+ led-22 {
label = "eth51:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 19 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@23 {
+ led-23 {
label = "eth51:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 19 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@24 {
+ led-24 {
label = "eth52:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 20 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@25 {
+ led-25 {
label = "eth52:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 20 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@26 {
+ led-26 {
label = "eth53:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 21 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@27 {
+ led-27 {
label = "eth53:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 21 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@28 {
+ led-28 {
label = "eth54:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 22 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@29 {
+ led-29 {
label = "eth54:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 22 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@30 {
+ led-30 {
label = "eth55:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 23 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@31 {
+ led-31 {
label = "eth55:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 23 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@32 {
+ led-32 {
label = "eth56:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 24 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@33 {
+ led-33 {
label = "eth56:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 24 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@34 {
+ led-34 {
label = "eth57:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 25 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@35 {
+ led-35 {
label = "eth57:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 25 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@36 {
+ led-36 {
label = "eth58:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 26 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@37 {
+ led-37 {
label = "eth58:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 26 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@38 {
+ led-38 {
label = "eth59:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 27 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@39 {
+ led-39 {
label = "eth59:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 27 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@40 {
+ led-40 {
label = "eth60:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 28 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@41 {
+ led-41 {
label = "eth60:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 28 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@42 {
+ led-42 {
label = "eth61:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 29 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@43 {
+ led-43 {
label = "eth61:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 29 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@44 {
+ led-44 {
label = "eth62:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 30 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@45 {
+ led-45 {
label = "eth62:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 30 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@46 {
+ led-46 {
label = "eth63:green";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 31 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
};
- led@47 {
+ led-47 {
label = "eth63:yellow";
gpios = <&sgpio_out1 31 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
default-state = "off";
--
2.34.1
Hi Krzysztof,
On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 21:04 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe
>
> Since beginning the DTS extended the SPI0 in two places adding two
> SPI
> muxes, each with same SPI NOR flash. Both used exactly the same
> chip-selects, so this was clearly buggy code. Then in commit
> d0f482bb06f9 ("arm64: dts: sparx5: Add the Sparx5 switch node") one
> SPI
> mux was removed, while keeping the SPI NOR flash node.
>
> This still leaves duplicated SPI nodes under same chip select 0,
> reported by dtc W=1 warnings:
>
> sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi:277.10-281.4: Warning
> (unique_unit_address_if_enabled):
> /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/flash@0: duplicate unit-address (also
> used in node /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/spi@0)
>
> Steen Hegelund confirmed that in fact there is a SPI mux, thus remove
> the duplicated node without the mux.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Not tested on hardware
>
> Changes in v2:
> 1. Remove SPI node without mux.
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi | 9 ---------
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
> index f165a409bc1d..2c5574734c9e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
> @@ -272,15 +272,6 @@ gpio@1 {
> };
> };
>
> -&spi0 {
> - status = "okay";
> - flash@0 {
> - compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
> - spi-max-frequency = <8000000>;
> - reg = <0>;
> - };
> -};
> -
> &spi0 {
> status = "okay";
> spi@0 {
> --
> 2.34.1
>
This works fine on my setup now.
Thanks for the patch series.
For this patch:
Tested-by: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
For whole series:
Reviewed-by: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
Hi Krzysztof,
On Fri, 2024-04-05 at 21:04 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you
> know the content is safe
>
> Since beginning the DTS extended the SPI0 in two places adding two
> SPI
> muxes, each with same SPI NOR flash. Both used exactly the same
> chip-selects, so this was clearly buggy code. Then in commit
> d0f482bb06f9 ("arm64: dts: sparx5: Add the Sparx5 switch node") one
> SPI
> mux was removed, while keeping the SPI NOR flash node.
>
> This still leaves duplicated SPI nodes under same chip select 0,
> reported by dtc W=1 warnings:
>
> sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi:92.10-96.4: Warning
> (unique_unit_address_if_enabled):
> /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/flash@0: duplicate unit-address (also
> used in node /axi@600000000/spi@600104000/spi@0)
>
> Steen Hegelund confirmed that in fact there is a SPI mux, thus remove
> the duplicated node without the mux.
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Not tested on hardware
>
> Changes in v2:
> 1. Remove SPI node without mux.
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi | 9 ---------
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
> index 20016efb3656..af2f1831f07f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb135_board.dtsi
> @@ -87,15 +87,6 @@ i2cmux_s32: i2cmux-3-pins {
> };
> };
>
> -&spi0 {
> - status = "okay";
> - flash@0 {
> - compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
> - spi-max-frequency = <8000000>;
> - reg = <0>;
> - };
> -};
> -
> &spi0 {
> status = "okay";
> spi@0 {
> --
> 2.34.1
>
This also works fine on my setup now.
Thanks for the patch series.
For this patch:
Tested-by: Steen Hegelund <[email protected]>
BR
Steen
From: Conor Dooley <[email protected]>
On Fri, 05 Apr 2024 21:04:10 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> Correct the reg address of mdio node to match unit address. Assume the
> reg is not correct and unit address was correct, because there is
> already node using the existing reg 0x110102d4.
>
> sparx5.dtsi:443.25-451.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /axi@600000000/mdio@6110102f8: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "6110102d4"
>
>
> [...]
Applied to microchip-dt64, thanks! I'll re-direct it to fixes either if
some wider cleanup needs some of these warnings gone before v6.10-rc1.
[01/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5: fix mdio reg
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/5d83b9cbe7cf
[02/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5: correct serdes unit address
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/013627825bbe
[03/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb134: add missing I2C mux unit addresses
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/9dcf4ec57700
[04/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb135: add missing I2C mux unit addresses
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/5150c3df4c2e
[05/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb134: align I2C mux node name with bindings
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/d3dd7bed4210
[06/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb135: align I2C mux node name with bindings
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/b0d5a3ce782a
[07/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb134: drop LED unit addresses
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/55fb5a97ebe0
[08/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb135: drop LED unit addresses
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/5945df4de0e2
[09/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb134: drop duplicated NOR flash
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/f1595d501ea4
[10/10] arm64: dts: microchip: sparx5_pcb135: drop duplicated NOR flash
https://git.kernel.org/at91/c/6c7c4b91aa43
Thanks,
Conor.
On 11/04/2024 20:27, Rob Herring wrote:
>> };
>>
>> &axi {
>> - i2c0_imux: i2c0-imux@0 {
>> + i2c0_imux: i2c-mux-0 {
>
> Doesn't this introduce a new warning with simple-bus.yaml? These
> devices shouldn't be under an AXI bus which should require a
> unit-address.
>
> All the sft-eth* nodes have the same problem:
> axi@600000000: sfp-eth63: {'compatible': ['sff,sfp'], 'i2c-bus':
> [[91]], 'tx-disable-gpios': [[87, 31, 0, 1]], 'rate-select0-gpios':
> [[87, 31, 1, 0]], 'los-gpios': [[88, 31, 0, 0]], 'mod-def0-gpios':
> [[88, 31, 1, 1]], 'tx-fault-gpios': [[88, 31, 2, 0]], 'phandle':
> [[78]]} should not be valid under {'type': 'object'}
>
True, this replaces one dtc warning with another, so the new one is:
Warning (simple_bus_reg): /axi@600000000/i2c-mux: missing or empty
reg/ranges property
which I kind of missed, because there are several other sfp nodes
causing the warning, like you mentioned above.
The true solution is to probably bring them out of axi bus, but for that
I would need to try to understand why they were put there in the first
place...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
On Fri, Apr 5, 2024 at 2:04 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> DT schema expects node names to match certain. This fixes dtbs_check
> warnings like:
>
> sparx5_pcb134_emmc.dtb: i2c0-emux@0: $nodename:0: 'i2c0-emux@0' does not match '^(i2c-?)?mux'
>
> and dtc W=1 warnings:
>
> sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi:398.25-403.4: Warning (unique_unit_address_if_enabled): /axi@600000000/i2c0-imux@0: duplicate unit-address (also used in node /axi@600000000/i2c0-emux@0)
>
> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>
>
> ---
>
> Changes in v2:
> 1. None
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
> index e816e6e9d62d..cafec6ef0d0f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/microchip/sparx5_pcb134_board.dtsi
> @@ -395,13 +395,13 @@ i2cmux_11: i2cmux-11-pins {
> };
>
> &axi {
> - i2c0_imux: i2c0-imux@0 {
> + i2c0_imux: i2c-mux-0 {
Doesn't this introduce a new warning with simple-bus.yaml? These
devices shouldn't be under an AXI bus which should require a
unit-address.
All the sft-eth* nodes have the same problem:
axi@600000000: sfp-eth63: {'compatible': ['sff,sfp'], 'i2c-bus':
[[91]], 'tx-disable-gpios': [[87, 31, 0, 1]], 'rate-select0-gpios':
[[87, 31, 1, 0]], 'los-gpios': [[88, 31, 0, 0]], 'mod-def0-gpios':
[[88, 31, 1, 1]], 'tx-fault-gpios': [[88, 31, 2, 0]], 'phandle':
[[78]]} should not be valid under {'type': 'object'}
Rob