On 15:02-20201005, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > > On 05/10/2020 14.58, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > On 10:48-20201005, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > >> Add the nodes for McASP 0-2 and keep them disabled because several > >> required properties are not present as they are board specific. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi > >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi > >> index 72d6496e88dd..cc6c2a81887a 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-j7200-main.dtsi > >> @@ -446,4 +446,61 @@ usb0: usb@6000000 { > >> dr_mode = "otg"; > >> }; > >> }; > >> +x > >> + mcasp0: mcasp@02b00000 { > >> + compatible = "ti,am33xx-mcasp-audio"; > >> + reg = <0x0 0x02b00000 0x0 0x2000>, > >> + <0x0 0x02b08000 0x0 0x1000>; > >> + reg-names = "mpu","dat"; > >> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 544 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>, > >> + <GIC_SPI 545 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; > >> + interrupt-names = "tx", "rx"; > >> + > >> + dmas = <&main_udmap 0xc400>, <&main_udmap 0x4400>; > >> + dma-names = "tx", "rx"; > >> + > >> + clocks = <&k3_clks 174 40>; > >> + clock-names = "fck"; > >> + power-domains = <&k3_pds 174 TI_SCI_PD_EXCLUSIVE>; > >> + > >> + status = "disabled"; > > > > I see that there is inconsistent usage of "disabled" in our SoC.dts > > > > Our generic rule has been set them to disabled in board.dtsi > > McASP and DSS for existing SoC dts do not follow this.. which is a tad > > confusing.. (considering that not even all uarts come out on every board > > and every uart needs pinmux to function..) > > "keep them disabled because several required properties are not present > as they are board specific." > > In board file the enabled mcasp must be updated with options that is > required for operation. Without those option the McASP can not be > initialized. > > I think we have been revisiting the very same discussion every time we > have a new SoC with McASP... >
Yep.. This doe'snt really follow the rest of the SoC definition. [1] came to mind. The McASP discussion is a variation in the debate of the same. I'd argue Serdes, or for that matter any IP that has a link to outside-the-SoC world has the same discussion point. [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9304575/ -- Regards, Nishanth Menon Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3 1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D
