On 1/4/23 08:30, Eugen.Hristev@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.moga@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.