[U-Boot] [PATCH] arm: dts: am33xx: add u-boot, dm-spl to ocp bus

[Hannes Schmelzer]

On 1/31/19 4:59 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 04:48:10PM +0100, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
>
>> On 1/31/19 3:57 PM, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 08:03:19AM +0100, Hannes Schmelzer wrote:
>>>
>>>> commit fdce9d35dc36 ("arm: dts: am33xx: Sync dts with Linux 4.20.0")
>>>> did remove the "u-boot,dm-spl" flag from the 'ocp' bus which was
>>>> introduced with
>>>> commit 19aa4ac09db9 ("dts: am33xx: add u-boot, dm-spl to ocp bus")
>>>>
>>>> Due to this the brppt1_spi board is broken because it cannot
>>>> bind/probe the spi-interface during SPL stage.
>>>>
>>>> This commit adds this flag again.
>>>>
>>>> This flag is needed for having access to the devices below this bus,
>>>> most important is uart and boot-device (spi, mmc, ...) in SPL stage.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Schmelzer <hannes.schmelzer at br-automation.com>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>>   arch/arm/dts/am33xx.dtsi | 1 +
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/am33xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/am33xx.dtsi
>>>> index d3dd6a1..0a6b177 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/am33xx.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/am33xx.dtsi
>>>> @@ -160,6 +160,7 @@
>>>>   	 * the whole bus hierarchy.
>>>>   	 */
>>>>   	ocp {
>>>> +		u-boot,dm-spl;
>>>>   		compatible = "simple-bus";
>>>>   		#address-cells = <1>;
>>>>   		#size-cells = <1>;
>>> We need to put this into one of the -u-boot.dtsi files and then #include
>>> it from the others, so that we don't keep dropping this flag.  Thanks!
>> Hi Tom,
>> i'm not sure if we can do that this way because the "ocp" bus has no valid
>> label like other elements.
>> So we have at least to adjust the am33xx.dtsi file like this:
>>
>>          ocp : ocp {
>>                  compatible = "simple-bus";
>>                  .....
>>          }
>>
>> what do you suggest ?
> Er, with the example of arch/arm/dts/am335x-pdu001-u-boot.dtsi should't
> we be able to just do that, globally?  Or is that part _not_ working and
> relied on the now removed hunk?
Hi Tom,
I'll verify this tomorrow. But the pdu001 looks good to me.
This would be a solution for my boards too if it does the job.
Keep you up to date.

cheers,
Hannes

>