Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] ARM: dts: aspeed: add asrock x470d4u bmc
From: Tan Siewert
Date: Sun Aug 16 2026 - 06:55:41 EST
Hi Zev,
Many thanks for your review!
On 16.08.26 06:49, Zev Weiss wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 01:28:27PM PDT, Tan Siewert wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-asrock-x470d4u- data64.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-asrock-x470d4u- data64.dts
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..6f11aeab087c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-asrock-x470d4u-data64.dts
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+
+#include "aspeed-bmc-asrock-x470d4u.dts"
+
+/ {
+ compatible = "asrock,x470d4u-data64-bmc", "aspeed,ast2500";
+ model = "Asrock Rack X470D4U-series BMC (64MB store)";
Nit: for consistency with how they spell it, and (at least *most* of) the other aspeed-bmc-asrock-*.dts files, I'd suggest "ASRock" instead of "Asrock". (And IMO s/store/flash/ would be a touch clearer.)
Agreed on both, will fix it in v4.
Also, looks like the other nearby DTS files pretty consistently have compatible & model in the opposite order, so matching that might be nice too.
This is something that was reported by `scripts/dtc/dt-style-check --mode strict`. Depending on how much time I have next week I'll look into fixing the dtc offsenses for arm/dts/aspeed (tho that'd come from my employer email).
+};
+
+&fmc {
+ flash@0 {
+ /delete-node/partitions;
+#include "openbmc-flash-layout-64.dtsi"
+ };
+};
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-asrock-x470d4u.dts b/ arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-asrock-x470d4u.dts
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..80fb2b7c1e0c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/aspeed/aspeed-bmc-asrock-x470d4u.dts
<snip>
+
+ fan@3 {
+ /* FAN4 (6-pin) */
+ reg = <0x03>;
+ aspeed,fan-tach-ch = /bits/ 8 <0x03 0x0b>;
+ };
+
+ fan@4 {
+ /* FAN5 (6-pin) */
+ reg = <0x04>;
+ aspeed,fan-tach-ch = /bits/ 8 <0x04 0x0d>;
+ };
+
+ fan@5 {
+ /* FAN6 (6-pin) */
+ reg = <0x05>;
+ aspeed,fan-tach-ch = /bits/ 8 <0x05 0x0e>;
+ };
+};
Just to confirm, skipping channel 0xc here is intentional I assume? (Most other related platforms have them contiguously numbered, but not all, so another slight oddity wouldn't be too shocking.)
The skip is intentional. That is what I found out during reverse engineering the SDR file in the vendor firmware.
Cheers,
Tan