Hi Ken,
On 23.03.2017 10:29, make@marvell.com wrote:
From: Ken Ma make@marvell.com
- Add scsi node which acts as a bus for scsi devices, armada3700 has only 1 scsi interface, so max-id is 1, and the logic unit number is also 1 for armada3700;
- Since a3700's scsi is sas(serial attached scsi) which is compatible for sata and sata hard disk is a sas device, so move sata node to be under scsi node.
Signed-off-by: Ken Ma make@marvell.com Cc: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org Cc: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de Cc: Michal Simek michal.simek@xilinx.com Reviewed-on: http://vgitil04.il.marvell.com:8080/35303 Tested-by: iSoC Platform CI ykjenk@marvell.com Reviewed-by: Kostya Porotchkin kostap@marvell.com Reviewed-by: Omri Itach omrii@marvell.com
arch/arm/dts/armada-3720-db.dts | 4 ++++ arch/arm/dts/armada-37xx.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++---- 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/armada-3720-db.dts b/arch/arm/dts/armada-3720-db.dts index 85761af..9fc60f6 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/armada-3720-db.dts +++ b/arch/arm/dts/armada-3720-db.dts @@ -89,6 +89,10 @@ status = "okay"; };
+&scsi {
- status = "okay";
+};
/* CON3 */ &sata { status = "okay"; diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/armada-37xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/armada-37xx.dtsi index 062f2a6..de5d3a1 100644 --- a/arch/arm/dts/armada-37xx.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/dts/armada-37xx.dtsi @@ -149,11 +149,19 @@ status = "disabled"; };
sata: sata@e0000 {compatible = "marvell,armada-3700-ahci";reg = <0xe0000 0x2000>;interrupts = <GIC_SPI 27 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
scsi: scsi {compatible = "marvell,mvebu-scsi";#address-cells = <1>;#size-cells = <1>;max-id = <1>;max-lun = <1>; status = "disabled";sata: sata@e0000 {compatible = "marvell,armada-3700-ahci";reg = <0xe0000 0x2000>;interrupts = <GIC_SPI 27 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;status = "disabled";}; }; gic: interrupt-controller@1d00000 {
I see that you introduce a "scsi" DT node and move the SATA controller one "level up". I'm not sure if such a change is acceptable as we try to re-use the DT from Linux. Or thinking more about this, I'm pretty sure that such a change is not acceptable in general.
Can't you use the existing DT layout and use the "marvell,armada-3700-ahci" (and other perhaps?) compatible property instead for driver probing? Not sure how to handle the "max-id" and "max-lun" properties though. We definitely can't just add some ad-hoc properties here in U-Boot which have no chance for Linux upstream acceptance.
Thanks, Stefan