Re: [PATCH v1 3/6] arm64: dts: qcom: talos: Add QSPI support

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 3/30/26 1:23 PM, Viken Dadhaniya wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3/25/2026 3:02 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 3/24/26 9:51 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 24, 2026 at 06:43:20PM +0530, Viken Dadhaniya wrote:
>>>> The Talos (QCS615) platform includes a QSPI controller used for accessing
>>>> external flash storage. Add the QSPI OPP table, TLMM pinmux entries, and
>>>> the QSPI controller node to enable support for this hardware.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Viken Dadhaniya <viken.dadhaniya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos.dtsi | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 80 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos.dtsi
>>>> index 75716b4a58d6..fd727924b8ca 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/talos.dtsi
>>>> @@ -530,6 +530,25 @@ cdsp_smp2p_in: slave-kernel {
>>>>  
>>>>  	};
>>>>  
>>>> +	qspi_opp_table: opp-table-qspi {
>>>
>>> Why is it not defined inside the QSPI device itself?
>>
>> The QSPI device has #address-cells = <1>, so we'd get:
>>
>> Warning (spi_bus_reg): /soc@0/spi@88dc000/opp-table-qspi: missing or empty reg property
>>
>> Konrad
> 
> Yes, I am seeing the same warning when the OPP table is placed inline
> under the QSPI node.
> 
> Given that opp-table nodes are not addressable bus devices and therefore
> do not define a reg property, what would be your preferred way to model
> this while keeping the DT warning‑free?
> 
> Would placing the OPP table as a sibling of the QSPI node (for example
> under the same &soc scope) and referencing it via operating-points-v2 be
> acceptable in this case, even though there is only a single QSPI instance?

I personally don't mind it being in the place where the current version
of the patch puts it, Krzysztof?

Konrad