Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ARM: dts: NSP: Add common bindings for MX64/MX65

[Vladimir Oltean]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 12:27:15AM +0100, Matthew Hagan wrote:
> These bindings are required for all Meraki MX64/MX65 devices.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Hagan <mnhagan88@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  .../dts/bcm958625-meraki-mx6x-common.dtsi     | 148 ++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 148 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625-meraki-mx6x-common.dtsi
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625-meraki-mx6x-common.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625-meraki-mx6x-common.dtsi
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..47a30dedf7b3
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm958625-meraki-mx6x-common.dtsi
> @@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT
> +/*
> + * Common Bindings for Cisco Meraki MX64 (Kingpin) and MX65 (Alamo) devices.
> + *
> + * Copyright (C) 2021 Matthew Hagan <mnhagan88@xxxxxxxxx>
> + */
> +
> +#include "bcm-nsp.dtsi"
> +#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
> +
> +/ {
> +	chosen {
> +		stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8";
> +	};
> +
> +	memory {
> +		device_type = "memory";
> +		reg = <0x60000000 0x80000000>;
> +	};
> +
> +	pwm-leds {
> +		compatible = "pwm-leds";
> +
> +		red {
> +			label = "red:led";
> +			pwms = <&pwm 1 50000>;
> +		};
> +
> +		green {
> +			label = "green:led";
> +			pwms = <&pwm 2 50000>;
> +		};
> +
> +		blue {
> +			label = "blue:led";
> +			pwms = <&pwm 3 50000>;
> +		};
> +	};
> +};
> +
> +&L2 {
> +	arm,io-coherent;
> +	prefetch-data = <1>;
> +	prefetch-instr = <1>;
> +};

It is common practice to sort labels alphabetically and nodes by unit address.

> +
> +&uart0 {
> +	clock-frequency = <62500000>;
> +	status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&i2c0 {
> +	status = "okay";
> +	at24@50 {
> +		compatible = "atmel,24c64";
> +		pagesize = <32>;
> +		reg = <0x50>;
> +	};
> +};
> +
> +&amac2 {
> +	status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&nand {
> +	nandcs@0 {
> +		compatible = "brcm,nandcs";
> +		reg = <0>;
> +		nand-on-flash-bbt;
> +
> +		#address-cells = <1>;
> +		#size-cells = <1>;
> +
> +		nand-ecc-strength = <24>;
> +		nand-ecc-step-size = <1024>;
> +
> +		brcm,nand-oob-sector-size = <27>;
> +
> +		partition@0 {
> +			label = "u-boot";
> +			reg = <0x0 0x80000>;
> +			read-only;
> +		};
> +
> +		partition@80000 {
> +			label = "shmoo";
> +			reg = <0x80000 0x80000>;
> +			read-only;
> +		};
> +
> +		partition@100000 {
> +			label = "bootkernel1";
> +			reg = <0x100000 0x300000>;
> +		};
> +
> +		partition@400000 {
> +			label = "senao_nvram";
> +			reg = <0x400000 0x100000>;
> +		};
> +
> +		partition@500000 {
> +			label = "bootkernel2";
> +			reg = <0x500000 0x300000>;
> +		};
> +
> +		partition@800000 {
> +			label = "ubi";
> +			reg = <0x800000 0x3f700000>;
> +		};
> +	};
> +};
> +
> +&qspi {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&ehci0 {
> +	status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&ohci0 {
> +	status = "okay";
> +};
> +
> +&pwm {
> +	status = "okay";
> +	#pwm-cells = <2>;

What is the reason for overriding this to 2?

> +	chan0 {
> +		channel = <1>;
> +		active_low = <1>;
> +		};

Bad indentation for this bracket.

> +	chan1 {
> +		channel = <2>;
> +		active_low = <1>;
> +	};
> +	chan2 {
> +		channel = <3>;
> +		active_low = <1>;
> +	};
> +};
> +
> +&ccbtimer1 {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&sata_phy {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};

It is common practice to disable these in the common SoC dtsi and let
individual boards enable them as necessary, instead of the opposite.

> -- 
> 2.26.3
>