On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 01:08:45AM +0100, André Przywara wrote:
> > --- a/MAINTAINERS
> > +++ b/MAINTAINERS
> > @@ -982,6 +982,7 @@ M:      Chen-Yu Tsai <w...@csie.org>
> >  L: linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
> >  S: Maintained
> >  N: sun[x456789]i
> > +F: arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/
> 
> If you promise to not break it needlessly ;-)

We started doing so since 4.7, and we're already fighting needlessly
with maintainers because of that.

> > +   cpus {
> > +           #address-cells = <1>;
> > +           #size-cells = <0>;
> > +
> > +           cpu@0 {
> 
> This is probably me to blame here since I put you up to it, but you need
> "cpux" names (e.g. "cpu0: cpu@0 {") to match the ones that the PMU node
> references below. dtc will refuse to compile it otherwise.

Gaah, yes, of course.

> > +                   i2c1_pins: i2c1_pins {
> > +                           allwinner,pins = "PH2", "PH3";
> > +                           allwinner,function = "i2c1";
> > +                           allwinner,drive = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_10_MA>;
> > +                           allwinner,pull = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_NO_PULL>;
> > +                   };
> > +
> > +                   uart0_pins_a: uart0@0 {
> > +                           allwinner,pins = "PB8", "PB9";
> > +                           allwinner,function = "uart0";
> > +                           allwinner,drive = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_10_MA>;
> > +                           allwinner,pull = <SUN4I_PINCTRL_NO_PULL>;
> > +                   };
> 
> So did I get this right that there is a strict "no user - no pins"
> policy here?
> I don't see a reason why we shouldn't have at least the other UART pins
> described here as well - since they are a pure SoC property. That would
> make it easier for people to enable them (with a simple, scripted fdt
> one-liner command in U-Boot, for instance).

To avoid having huge DT that are longer to load and parse, especially
since every one wires it in the exact same way all the time. And the
combination is just too high.

On the A64, the UART0 can be exposed through PB9 and PF4 for TX, and
PB8 and PF2 for RX. Even though the common usage would be to use PB8
and PB9, or PF4 and PF6. But absolutely nothing prevents from using
PB8 and PF4.

You can then add CTS and RTS into the mix, and multiply that by the
number of devices in the SoC.

> I guess there will never be an official DT with more than 2 UARTs
> enabled, although we have actually five UARTs on the headers on the
> Pine64, for instance (and personally I am looking into using one as a
> terminal server).

We relaxed the rule lately however. Boards that have access to those
UARTs on their headers can put a node in their DT with the right
muxing filled already. Which brings you the simple, script fdt
one-liner in U-Boot.

> Also UART1 is connected to that WiFi/Bluetooth slot, having it enabled
> should make BT work without further ado (but I haven't tested this).

That's probably not true. You'll most likely need to enable a few
regulators to have it working.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to