Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: sdm845: Add minimal dts/dtsi files for sdm845 SoC and MTP

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:47 PM, Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> []..
>
>>> +
>>> +#include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/arm-gic.h>
>>> +
>>> +/ {
>>> +       model = "Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. SDM845";
>>
>> This should only be in the board level file.
>
> thanks, will fix.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> +       interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>>> +
>>> +       #address-cells = <2>;
>>> +       #size-cells = <2>;
>>> +
>>> +       chosen { };
>>> +
>>> +       memory {
>>> +               device_type = "memory";
>>> +               /* We expect the bootloader to fill in the reg */
>>
>> The start address is variable? If not you should populate the base and
>> have a unit-address.
>
> sure, I'll check and update.
>
>>
>>> +               reg = <0 0 0 0>;
>>> +       };
>>> +
>
> []..
>>> +
>>> +       soc: soc {
>>> +               #address-cells = <1>;
>>> +               #size-cells = <1>;
>>> +               ranges = <0 0 0 0xffffffff>;
>>> +               compatible = "simple-bus";
>>> +
>>> +               intc: interrupt-controller@17a00000 {
>>> +                       compatible = "arm,gic-v3";
>>> +                       #interrupt-cells = <3>;
>>> +                       interrupt-controller;
>>> +                       #redistributor-regions = <1>;
>>> +                       redistributor-stride = <0x0 0x20000>;
>>> +                       reg = <0x17a00000 0x10000>,     /* GICD */
>>> +                             <0x17a60000 0x100000>;    /* GICR * 8 */
>>> +                       interrupts = <GIC_PPI 9 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>>> +               };
>>> +
>>> +               gcc: clock-controller@100000 {
>>> +                       compatible = "qcom,gcc-sdm845";
>>
>> sdm845-gcc is the preferred order.
>
> This is still proposed as part of the GCC patch for sdm845 [1]
> (which looks like has neither you nor the DT list copied :/ )
> Also looking at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gcc.txt,
> I see we seem to follow the gcc-<soc> convention for compatible all along :(
>
>                         "qcom,gcc-apq8064"
>                         "qcom,gcc-apq8084"
>                         "qcom,gcc-ipq8064"
>                         "qcom,gcc-ipq4019"
>                         "qcom,gcc-ipq8074"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8660"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8916"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8960"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8974"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8974pro"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8974pro-ac"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8994"
>                         "qcom,gcc-msm8996"
>                         "qcom,gcc-mdm9615"

Okay, I guess the pattern for this is pretty much established.

Rob