Hi, Am 25.05.2017 um 19:29 schrieb Joshua Clayton: > Add support for Altera V FPGA connected to an spi port
Did you mean "Altera Cyclone V"? > to the evi devicetree file > > Signed-off-by: Joshua Clayton <[email protected]> > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts > index 24fe093a66db..a0cbb2d84803 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/imx6q-evi.dts > @@ -82,6 +82,15 @@ > pinctrl-names = "default"; > pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_ecspi1 &pinctrl_ecspi1cs>; > status = "okay"; > + > + fpga_spi: cyclonespi@0 { "cyclonespi" does not strike me as the best node name. I am guessing this is a sub-node of a SPI controller node, so no need to repeat "spi", and Cyclone seems more or less implied by "altr,fpga-". Note that the example in the bindings doc uses "evi-fpga-spi". Nodes don't need to be (shouldn't be?) prefixed with the board. Note that bindings examples tend to get copied a lot. Any reason not to just use "fpga@0" in both places for simplicity? > + compatible = "altr,fpga-passive-serial"; > + spi-max-frequency = <20000000>; > + reg = <0>; > + pinctrl-0 = <&pinctrl_fpgaspi>; > + nconfig-gpios = <&gpio4 9 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > + nstat-gpios = <&gpio4 11 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; > + }; > }; > > &ecspi3 { [snip] Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
