Hi Bjorn,
Thanks a lot for all the reviews.
On 3/27/2018 10:20 PM, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Fri 23 Mar 03:18 PDT 2018, Sricharan R wrote:
>> @@ -172,6 +180,22 @@
>> clock-names = "core", "iface";
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <0>;
>> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 5>, <&blsp_dma 4>;
>> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
>> + status = "disabled";
>> + };
>> +
>> + spi_1: spi@78b6000 { /* BLSP1 QUP2 */
>> + compatible = "qcom,spi-qup-v2.2.1";
>> + reg = <0x78b6000 0x600>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 96 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_QUP2_SPI_APPS_CLK>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_AHB_CLK>;
>> + clock-names = "core", "iface";
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 7>, <&blsp_dma 6>;
>> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
>> status = "disabled";
>> };
>>
>> @@ -184,9 +208,24 @@
>> clock-names = "iface", "core";
>> #address-cells = <1>;
>> #size-cells = <0>;
>> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 9>, <&blsp_dma 8>;
>> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
>> status = "disabled";
>> };
>>
>> + i2c_1: i2c@78b8000 { /* BLSP1 QUP4 */
>
> The label, comment and the core clock disagrees on which qup this is.
>
> Label your nodes based on the SoC naming, not your board - as this will
> prevent a future board from using e.g. blsp1 qup2 as i2c (as you already
> used the label for that).
Sure. will fix. Infact this is QUP3.
>
>> + compatible = "qcom,i2c-qup-v2.2.1";
>> + reg = <0x78b8000 0x600>;
>> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 98 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>> + clocks = <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_AHB_CLK>,
>> + <&gcc GCC_BLSP1_QUP2_I2C_APPS_CLK>;
>
> QUP4?
QUP3
>
>> + clock-names = "iface", "core";
>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>> + dmas = <&blsp_dma 11>, <&blsp_dma 10>;
>> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
>> + status = "disabled";
>> + };
>
> Apart from this the patch looks good.
Thanks.
Regards,
Sricharan
--
"QUALCOMM INDIA, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of
Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
