[PATCH 2/2] dts: Add u-boot specific 'fsl,mux_mask' property to iomuxc for vf610

[Tom Rini]

On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 05:28:56PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 08:14:24AM -0600, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 08:36:37AM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > Hi Tom,
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:47:00PM +0200, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > The commit e8a9521e649f
> > > > > ("vf500/vf610: synchronise device trees with linux")
> > > > > has synchronized U-Boot's DTS with v5.19 Linux kernel.
> > > > > It turned out that in Linux's upstream iomuxc node description the
> > > > > fsl,mux_mask' was missing, so the U-Boot's pinctrl driver for NXP's
> > > > > Vybrid SoC was not working properly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > As by default the mux mask was set to 0, the vf610 based boards
> > > > > (like BK4) were bricked, due to misconfiguration of gpio at early
> > > > > boot stage.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The fix for all vf610 based boards is to introduce
> > > > > vfxxx-u-boot.dtsi file with 'fsl,mux_mask' property provided and
> > > > > include it in boards' specific U-Boot adjustment files (like
> > > > > vf610-bk4r1-u-boot.dtsi).
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Lukasz Majewski <lukma at denx.de>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  arch/arm/dts/vf610-bk4r1-u-boot.dtsi | 2 ++
> > > > >  arch/arm/dts/vfxxx-u-boot.dtsi       | 9 +++++++++
> > > > >  2 files changed, 11 insertions(+)
> > > > >  create mode 100644 arch/arm/dts/vfxxx-u-boot.dtsi  
> > > > 
> > > > It looks like this is still missing upstream, so what's the status on
> > > > that? 
> > > 
> > > It looks like in Linux the mux_mask is hardcoded (for Vybrid vf610):
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.16-rc3/source/drivers/pinctrl/freescale/pinctrl-vf610.c#L321
> > > 
> > > In u-boot other SoCs use it as well, but with different values:
> > > - arch/arm/dts/imxrt1050.dtsi -> 0x7
> > > - arch/arm/dts/imx8ulp-evk-u-boot.dtsi -> 0xf00
> > > 
> > > In the imx8ulp case above - it is already set in *-u-boot.dtsi specific
> > > file, so I've followed this approach.
> > 
> > Someone should unify upstream to one approach or another I would think.
> > Or find a good explanation as to why it's not unified, and then we
> > should follow.
> 
> If these values are per-SoC, which they appear to be given these
> look like 3 different devices, I don't see a reason for these to be
> accepted "upstream".

OK, yes. But it should either be "hard code a thing" or "get the
property" not maybe-one-maybe-the-other? That was what I was trying to
make as my point.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 659 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20250625/7970b352/attachment.sig>