On 1/4/23 08:30, eugen.hris...@microchip.com wrote:
On 1/3/23 01:12, Marek Vasut wrote:
On 12/23/22 13:33, Sergiu Moga wrote:
Add the OHCI and EHCI DT nodes for the sam9x60 boards.
Signed-off-by: Sergiu Moga <sergiu.m...@microchip.com>
---
arch/arm/dts/at91-sam9x60_curiosity.dts | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
arch/arm/dts/sam9x60.dtsi | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
Board and SoC DT changes should be in separate patches.
arch/arm/dts/sam9x60ek.dts | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
3 files changed, 60 insertions(+)
[...]
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/sam9x60.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/sam9x60.dtsi
index 17224ef771..e36a540f78 100644
--- a/arch/arm/dts/sam9x60.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/dts/sam9x60.dtsi
@@ -69,6 +69,24 @@
#size-cells = <1>;
ranges;
+ usb1: ohci@600000 {
This should be usb@ instead of ohci@ , if you run "make dtbs_check" on
this DT in Linux (please do), you would likely get a warning , see Linux
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/usb.yaml .
If in Linux we have ohci@ , then we need to have the same in U-boot.
You should update the Linux DT to usb@ too to avoid dtbs_check warnings.
We can accept the change to usb@ , if there is a pending patch in Linux.
I can make the same argument about Linux, since DTs are OS agnostic. My
comment is OS agnostic too and does not apply specifically to U-Boot or
Linux, it applies to DT.
U-boot is not the place to review the devicetree.
I strongly disagree with this statement.
What does it matter where the review feedback came from ?
What does matter is that you can improve the DT based on that feedback,
if the feedback is valid.
The devicetree must be in sync with Linux.
I agree with this statement.
Please update the Linux DT too.
