Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 07 Mar 2022 13:04:45 +0100 | From | Michael Walle <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] ARM: dts: lan966x: add all flexcom usart nodes |
| |
Am 2022-03-07 12:53, schrieb Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com: > On 04.03.2022 13:01, Michael Walle wrote: >> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know >> the >> content is safe >> >> Hi, >> >> thanks for the quick review. >> >> Am 2022-03-04 09:30, schrieb Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com: >>> On 03.03.2022 18:03, Michael Walle wrote: >>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you >>>> know >>>> the content is safe >>>> >>>> Add all the usart nodes for the flexcom block. There was already >>>> an usart node for the flexcom3 block. But it missed the DMA >>>> channels. >>> >>> And it would be good to go though a different patch. >> >> sure >> >>>> Although the DMA channels are specified, DMA is not >>>> enabled by default because break detection doesn't work with DMA. >>>> >>>> Keep the nodes disabled by default. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi | 55 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi >>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi >>>> index a7d46a2ca058..bea69b6d2749 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/lan966x.dtsi >>>> @@ -92,6 +92,19 @@ flx0: flexcom@e0040000 { >>>> #size-cells = <1>; >>>> ranges = <0x0 0xe0040000 0x800>; >>>> status = "disabled"; >>>> + >>>> + usart0: serial@200 { >>>> + compatible = >>>> "atmel,at91sam9260-usart"; >>> >>> Are the usart blocks in lan966x 1:1 compatible with what is is >>> sam9260? >>> In >>> case not it may worth to have a new compatible here, for lan966x, >>> such >>> that >>> when new features will be implemented in usart driver for lan966x the >>> old >>> DT (this one) will work with the new kernel implementation. >> >> During my review of the inital dtsi patch, I've asked the same >> question >> [1] >> and I was told they are the same. >> >> At least this exact usart compatible is already in this file. I was >> under >> the impression, that was the least controversial compatible :) > > OK. > >> >> But you'll need to tell me if they are the same or not, I don't have >> any clue what microchip has reused. > > From software point of view comparing registers should be good, as far > as I > can tell. All AT91 datasheet should be available. I though you have > checked > one against LAN966. At the moment I don't have a DS for LAN966. I'll > find > one and have a look.
So my train of thought was like: even if the registers are the same I cannot be sure that it is the exact same IP and will behave the same. Therefore, it is something only microchip can answer.
You can find the registers at https://microchip-ung.github.io/lan9668_reginfo/reginfo_LAN9668.html
I'm not aware of any "classic" datasheet.
-michael
| |