On 01/13/2017 04:12 PM, Matthias Brugger wrote:

On 13/01/17 15:17, Boris Brezillon wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:13:29 +0800
Guochun Mao [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Add Mediatek nor flash node.

Signed-off-by: Guochun Mao <guochun.mao-NuS5LvNUpcJWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
---
 arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts |   25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi    |   12 ++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts

b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
index 082ca88..85e5ae8 100644

--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701-evb.dts

@@ -24,6 +24,31 @@
     };
 };

+&nor_flash {
+    pinctrl-names = "default";
+    pinctrl-0 = <&nor_pins_default>;
+    status = "okay";
+    flash@0 {
+        compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
+        reg = <0>;
+    };
+};
+
+&pio {
+    nor_pins_default: nor {
+        pins1 {
+            pinmux = <MT2701_PIN_240_EXT_XCS__FUNC_EXT_XCS>,
+                 <MT2701_PIN_241_EXT_SCK__FUNC_EXT_SCK>,
+                 <MT2701_PIN_239_EXT_SDIO0__FUNC_EXT_SDIO0>,
+                 <MT2701_PIN_238_EXT_SDIO1__FUNC_EXT_SDIO1>,
+                 <MT2701_PIN_237_EXT_SDIO2__FUNC_EXT_SDIO2>,
+                 <MT2701_PIN_236_EXT_SDIO3__FUNC_EXT_SDIO3>;
+            drive-strength = <MTK_DRIVE_4mA>;
+            bias-pull-up;
+        };
+    };
+};
+
 &uart0 {
     status = "okay";
 };

diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi

b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
index bdf8954..1eefce4 100644

--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/mt2701.dtsi

@@ -227,6 +227,18 @@
         status = "disabled";
     };

+    nor_flash: spi@11014000 {
+        compatible = "mediatek,mt2701-nor",
+                 "mediatek,mt8173-nor";

Why define both here? Is "mediatek,mt8173-nor" really providing a
subset of the features supported by "mediatek,mt2701-nor"?

I think even if the ip block is the same, we should provide both
bindings, just in case in the future we find out that mt2701 has some
hidden bug, feature or bug-feature. This way even if we update the
driver, we stay compatible with older device tree blobs in the wild.

We can drop the mt2701-nor in the bindings definition if you want.

This exactly. We should have a DT compat in the form:
compatible = "vendor,<soc>-block", "vendor,<oldest-compat-soc>-block";
Then if we find a problem in the future, we can match on the
"vendor,<soc>-block" and still support the old DTs.

The question is, does the "vendor,<soc>-block" go into the binding
document as well or do we only have "vendor,<oldest-compat-soc>-block"
there ?

-- 
Best regards,
Marek Vasut
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html