Hi,
On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 at 17:34, Clément Péron <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Allwinner H6 has a r_watchdog similar to A64.
>
> Declare it in the device-tree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Clément Péron <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi
> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi
> index 5c2f5451227b..66dc684a378e 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h6.dtsi
> @@ -622,6 +622,13 @@
> #reset-cells = <1>;
> };
>
> + r_watchdog: watchdog@7020400 {
> + compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-a64-wdt",
> + "allwinner,sun6i-a31-wdt";
> + reg = <0x07020400 0x20>;
> + interrupts = <GIC_SPI 103 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> + };
I have set the same compatible as A64 because regarding the User
Manual they have exactly the same memory mapping.
However we don't know really if it's the same IP version, maybe there
will be an errata one day.
So I would like to know if it's better to define the h6-wdt also
compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-h6-wdt", "allwinner,sun50i-a64-wdt",
"allwinner,sun6i-a31-wdt";
I would say Yes, but with this logic we would have to had a new
compatible each time there is a new SoC.
Thanks,
Clement
> +
> r_intc: interrupt-controller@7021000 {
> compatible = "allwinner,sun50i-h6-r-intc",
> "allwinner,sun6i-a31-r-intc";
> --
> 2.17.1
>
--
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 [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
