[PATCH v2 2/2] arm: dts: k3-am642-evm/sk: Enable OSPI support in SPL

[Jon Humphreys]

Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> writes:

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 06:17:02PM -0600, Jonathan Humphreys wrote:
>> Add bootph DT tags to enable OSPI in SPL.
>> Set OSPI regs for R5 SPL to address OSPI's boot region.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Humphreys <j-humphreys at ti.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-evm-u-boot.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-r5-evm.dts      |  5 +++++
>>  arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-r5-sk.dts       |  5 +++++
>>  arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-sk-u-boot.dtsi  | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>  4 files changed, 42 insertions(+)
>> 
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-evm-u-boot.dtsi b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-evm-u-boot.dtsi
>> index b843078243..60b219c0be 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-evm-u-boot.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/dts/k3-am642-evm-u-boot.dtsi
>> @@ -182,3 +182,19 @@
>>  &cpsw_port2 {
>>  	status = "disabled";
>>  };
>> +
>> +&ospi0_pins_default {
>> +	bootph-all;
>> +};
>> +
>> +&fss {
>> +	bootph-all;
>> +};
>> +
>> +&ospi0 {
>> +	bootph-all;
>> +
>> +	flash at 0 {
>> +		bootph-all;
>> +	};
>> +};
>
> So this gets back to what I was asking in the first series, is this
> needed in SPL or full U-Boot as well? The bootph-* properties are
> supposed to be transitive, but originally the tooling didn't handle this
> and now the tooling handles SPL but not full U-Boot. Which also brings
> back the is this _needed_ question and is bootph-all right, rather than
> just the big hammer?
>
By "this", are you referring to the original phypattern partition nodes,
or the ospi0 node itself?  The partition nodes are not needed at all, so
removed.  The ospi node is needed in both SPL and U-Boot.  In that case,
using the bootph-all tag is the proper way, correct?

What do you mean by the 'big hammer'?

Please advise and thanks.

> -- 
> Tom