Re: [PATCH V4] arm64: dts: qcom: sc7280: Add nodes for eMMC and SD card
From: Stephen Boyd <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-22 20:17:58
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-mmc, lkml
Quoting Shaik Sajida Bhanu (2021-06-16 02:23:01)
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts index 3900cfc..0f63cac 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280-idp.dts@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ #include <dt-bindings/iio/qcom,spmi-adc7-pmr735b.h> #include <dt-bindings/iio/qcom,spmi-adc7-pm8350.h> #include <dt-bindings/iio/qcom,spmi-adc7-pmk8350.h> +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
The letter g comes before i, please move this higher in the list.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
#include "sc7280.dtsi" #include "pm7325.dtsi" #include "pmr735a.dtsi"@@ -272,6 +273,34 @@ status = "okay"; }; +&sdhc_1 { + status = "okay"; + + pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep"; + pinctrl-0 = <&sdc1_on>; + pinctrl-1 = <&sdc1_off>; + + non-removable; + no-sd; + no-sdio; + + vmmc-supply = <&vreg_l7b_2p9>; + vqmmc-supply = <&vreg_l19b_1p8>; +}; + +&sdhc_2 { + status = "okay"; + + pinctrl-names = "default", "sleep"; + pinctrl-0 = <&sdc2_on>; + pinctrl-1 = <&sdc2_off>; + + vmmc-supply = <&vreg_l9c_2p9>; + vqmmc-supply = <&vreg_l6c_2p9>; + + cd-gpios = <&tlmm 91 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; +}; + &uart5 { status = "okay"; };@@ -291,3 +320,55 @@ bias-pull-up; }; }; + +&tlmm { + sdc1_on: sdc1-on { + clk { + pins = "sdc1_clk";
Can the pins property at least be moved into sc7280.dtsi? Then this can add bias and drive strength overrides in the board file?
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
+ bias-disable; + drive-strength = <16>; + }; + + cmd { + pins = "sdc1_cmd"; + bias-pull-up; + drive-strength = <10>; + }; + + data { + pins = "sdc1_data"; + bias-pull-up; + drive-strength = <10>; + }; + + rclk { + pins = "sdc1_rclk"; + bias-pull-down; + }; + }; + + sdc2_on: sdc2-on { + clk { + pins = "sdc2_clk"; + bias-disable; + drive-strength = <16>; + }; + + cmd { + pins = "sdc2_cmd"; + bias-pull-up; + drive-strength = <10>; + }; + + data { + pins = "sdc2_data"; + bias-pull-up; + drive-strength = <10>; + }; + + sd-cd { + pins = "gpio91"; + bias-pull-up; + }; + }; +};diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi index d600bca..16d8e17 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7280.dtsi@@ -974,6 +1033,51 @@ }; }; + sdhc_2: sdhci@8804000 { + compatible = "qcom,sc7280-sdhci", "qcom,sdhci-msm-v5"; + status = "disabled"; + + reg = <0 0x08804000 0 0x1000>; + + iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x100 0x0>; + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 207 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, + <GIC_SPI 223 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; + interrupt-names = "hc_irq", "pwr_irq"; + + clocks = <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_APPS_CLK>, + <&gcc GCC_SDCC2_AHB_CLK>, + <&rpmhcc RPMH_CXO_CLK>; + clock-names = "core", "iface", "xo"; + interconnects = <&aggre1_noc MASTER_SDCC_2 0 &mc_virt SLAVE_EBI1 0>, + <&gem_noc MASTER_APPSS_PROC 0 &cnoc2 SLAVE_SDCC_2 0>; + interconnect-names = "sdhc-ddr","cpu-sdhc"; + power-domains = <&rpmhpd SC7280_CX>; + operating-points-v2 = <&sdhc2_opp_table>; + + bus-width = <4>; + + qcom,dll-config = <0x0007642c>; + + sdhc2_opp_table: sdhc2-opp-table {
Any reason the node shouldn't be called opp-table?