Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64: dts: ti: k3-j784s4-main: Add bootph-pre-ram property for SPL nodes

[Apurva Nandan]

Hi Nishanth,

On 08/08/23 00:37, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 00:26-20230808, Apurva Nandan wrote:
> > Add bootph-pre-ram property for all the nodes used in SPL stage,
> > for syncing it later to u-boot j784s4 dts.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Apurva Nandan <a-nandan@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> We need to rework this a little more:
>
> The approach taken in this series is enable pre-ram for everything. I am
> not sure that is the right direction.
These patches only enable bootph-pre-ram for the nodes, that already had 
bootph-pre-ram property in u-boot dts
patches for j784s4. And these are selected after removing unnecessary 
nodes that had this property, so not added for
everything. Are there a nodes which seem to have unnecessary 
bootph-pre-ram property according to you, need to remove?
> https://github.com/devicetree-org/dt-schema/blob/e87ba2f515392c2a4694642063efb43023331ff6/dtschema/schemas/bootph.yaml#L70
>
> patch #1: board generic changes: patch #1
> patch #2-: board specific change (per board)
>
> Make sure you use the correct property and document why this is needed
> in the section added as well - esp for board generic changes introduced
> into SoC.dtsi files.
I am little unclear about what nodes you refer with board generic vs 
board specific bootph-pre-ram.
I have currently added bootph-pre-ram in board EVM dts files if the node 
is disabled in SoC dtsi and enabled
in EVM dts (no point adding bootph-pre-ram in disabled node), or for 
pinmuxes, etc. What is the segregation
you want in the patch, do you want some bootph-pre-ram to be moved from 
where they are?
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-main.dtsi | 3 +++
> >   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-main.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-main.dtsi
> > index 2ea0adae6832..aaec569fe91a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-main.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j784s4-main.dtsi
> > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
> >    */
> >   
> >   &cbass_main {
> > +	bootph-pre-ram;
> Is this better done where the node is defined?
Okay, this I will fix.
> >   	msmc_ram: sram@70000000 {
> >   		compatible = "mmio-sram";
> >   		reg = <0x00 0x70000000 0x00 0x800000>;
> > @@ -670,6 +671,7 @@ main_sdhci1: mmc@4fb0000 {
> >   	};
> >   
> >   	main_navss: bus@30000000 {
> > +		bootph-pre-ram;
> >   		compatible = "simple-bus";
> >   		#address-cells = <2>;
> >   		#size-cells = <2>;
> > @@ -705,6 +707,7 @@ main_udmass_inta: msi-controller@33d00000 {
> >   		};
> >   
> >   		secure_proxy_main: mailbox@32c00000 {
> > +			bootph-pre-ram;
> >   			compatible = "ti,am654-secure-proxy";
> >   			#mbox-cells = <1>;
> >   			reg-names = "target_data", "rt", "scfg";
> > --
> > 2.34.1