| Message ID | 1417536431-27759-1-git-send-email-soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 12/02/2014 05:07 PM, Soren Brinkmann wrote: > Add USB nodes to zc702, zc706 and zed device trees. > > Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> > --- > v3: > - rename phy nodes: usb_phy -> phy0 > - rebased onto zynq/dt > v2: > - remove '@0' from phy node name > - don't add bogus space > --- > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts | 11 +++++++++++ > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts | 10 ++++++++++ > arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts | 10 ++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > index f8e4a28adfc0..21aae01a3fe9 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi > @@ -314,5 +314,25 @@ > reg = <0xf8f00600 0x20>; > clocks = <&clkc 4>; > }; > + > + usb0: usb@e0002000 { > + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-usb-2.20a", "chipidea,usb2"; > + status = "disabled"; > + clocks = <&clkc 28>; > + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; > + interrupts = <0 21 4>; > + reg = <0xe0002000 0x1000>; > + phy_type = "ulpi"; > + }; > + > + usb1: usb@e0003000 { > + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-usb-2.20a", "chipidea,usb2"; > + status = "disabled"; > + clocks = <&clkc 29>; > + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; > + interrupts = <0 44 4>; > + reg = <0xe0003000 0x1000>; > + phy_type = "ulpi"; > + }; > }; > }; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts > index 280f02dd4ddc..399fed4d9c19 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts > @@ -36,6 +36,11 @@ > linux,default-trigger = "heartbeat"; > }; > }; > + > + usb_phy0: phy0 { > + compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > + #phy-cells = <0>; > + }; > }; > > &can0 { > @@ -139,3 +144,9 @@ > &uart1 { > status = "okay"; > }; > + > +&usb0 { > + status = "okay"; > + dr_mode = "host"; > + usb-phy = <&usb_phy0>; > +}; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts > index 34f7812d2ee8..89cc9adc569d 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts > @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ > bootargs = "console=ttyPS0,115200 earlyprintk"; > }; > > + usb_phy0: phy0 { > + compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > + #phy-cells = <0>; > + }; > }; > > &clkc { > @@ -118,3 +122,9 @@ > &uart1 { > status = "okay"; > }; > + > +&usb0 { > + status = "okay"; > + dr_mode = "host"; > + usb-phy = <&usb_phy0>; > +}; > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts > index 1c7cc990b47a..e20956e5e720 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts > @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ > bootargs = "console=ttyPS0,115200 earlyprintk"; > }; > > + usb_phy0: phy0 { > + compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > + #phy-cells = <0>; > + }; > }; > > &clkc { > @@ -50,3 +54,9 @@ > &uart1 { > status = "okay"; > }; > + > +&usb0 { > + status = "okay"; > + dr_mode = "host"; > + usb-phy = <&usb_phy0>; > +}; > Applied to zynq/dt. Thanks, Michal
Hi Michal, Am 03.12.2014 um 09:39 schrieb Michal Simek: > On 12/02/2014 05:07 PM, Soren Brinkmann wrote: >> Add USB nodes to zc702, zc706 and zed device trees. >> >> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> >> --- >> v3: >> - rename phy nodes: usb_phy -> phy0 >> - rebased onto zynq/dt >> v2: >> - remove '@0' from phy node name >> - don't add bogus space >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts | 11 +++++++++++ >> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+) [...] > > Applied to zynq/dt. Hm, I don't see this patch in linux-next next-20150123... And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: f090e100 op: f090e140 [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: f0910100 op: f0910140 [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral Am I missing any other patches or config options? (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) Regards, Andreas
On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > Hi Michal, > > Am 03.12.2014 um 09:39 schrieb Michal Simek: >> On 12/02/2014 05:07 PM, Soren Brinkmann wrote: >>> Add USB nodes to zc702, zc706 and zed device trees. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> >>> --- >>> v3: >>> - rename phy nodes: usb_phy -> phy0 >>> - rebased onto zynq/dt >>> v2: >>> - remove '@0' from phy node name >>> - don't add bogus space >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts | 11 +++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >>> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+) > [...] >> >> Applied to zynq/dt. > > Hm, I don't see this patch in linux-next next-20150123... > > And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to > zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: > > [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > f090e100 op: f090e140 > [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > f0910100 op: f0910140 > [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > > Am I missing any other patches or config options? > (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug > for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? Thanks, Michal
Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek: > On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 03.12.2014 um 09:39 schrieb Michal Simek: >>> On 12/02/2014 05:07 PM, Soren Brinkmann wrote: >>>> Add USB nodes to zc702, zc706 and zed device trees. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> >>>> --- >>>> v3: >>>> - rename phy nodes: usb_phy -> phy0 >>>> - rebased onto zynq/dt >>>> v2: >>>> - remove '@0' from phy node name >>>> - don't add bogus space >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts | 11 +++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts | 10 ++++++++++ >>>> 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+) >> [...] >>> >>> Applied to zynq/dt. >> >> Hm, I don't see this patch in linux-next next-20150123... >> >> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to >> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: >> >> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >> f090e100 op: f090e140 >> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >> f0910100 op: f0910140 >> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >> >> Am I missing any other patches or config options? >> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug >> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) > > Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? No, happened without as well. Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' property of node '/phy0[0]' [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' property of node '/phy0[0]' [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' property of node '/phy1[0]' [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' property of node '/phy1[0]' [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified? Regards, Andreas
Am 26.01.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Andreas Färber: > Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek: >> On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to >>> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: >>> >>> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >>> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >>> f090e100 op: f090e140 >>> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >>> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >>> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >>> f0910100 op: f0910140 >>> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >>> >>> Am I missing any other patches or config options? >>> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug >>> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) >> >> Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? > > No, happened without as well. > > Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: > > [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup > [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > property > of node '/phy0[0]' > [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > property > of node '/phy0[0]' > [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO > [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 > [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup > [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > property > of node '/phy1[0]' > [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > property of node '/phy1[0]' > [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO > [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 > > So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a > property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two > MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified? Erm, scratch that last question - wrong PHY. Trying it resolved the above phy errors but not the original problem. And so does an empty one: @@ -99,11 +100,13 @@ usb_phy0: phy0 { compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; + reset-gpios = <>; #phy-cells = <0>; }; usb_phy1: phy1 { compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; + reset-gpios = <>; #phy-cells = <0>; }; }; In my manuals and notes I can't find any GPIO being used as reset for the USB PHYs. Any thoughts appreciated. Regards, Andreas
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:35AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 26.01.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Andreas Färber: > > Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek: > >> On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > >>> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to > >>> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: > >>> > >>> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > >>> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > >>> f090e100 op: f090e140 > >>> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > >>> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > >>> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > >>> f0910100 op: f0910140 > >>> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > >>> > >>> Am I missing any other patches or config options? > >>> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug > >>> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) > >> > >> Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? > > > > No, happened without as well. > > > > Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: > > > > [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup > > [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > > property > > of node '/phy0[0]' > > [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > > property > > of node '/phy0[0]' > > [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > > [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO > > [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 > > [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup > > [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > > property > > of node '/phy1[0]' > > [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > > property of node '/phy1[0]' > > [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > > [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > > [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO > > [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 > > > > So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a > > property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two > > MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified? > > Erm, scratch that last question - wrong PHY. Trying it resolved the > above phy errors but not the original problem. And so does an empty one: > > @@ -99,11 +100,13 @@ > > usb_phy0: phy0 { > compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > + reset-gpios = <>; > #phy-cells = <0>; > }; > > usb_phy1: phy1 { > compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > + reset-gpios = <>; > #phy-cells = <0>; > }; > }; > > In my manuals and notes I can't find any GPIO being used as reset for > the USB PHYs. Any thoughts appreciated. Such a connection is optional. The platform might rely on its reset circuit, though it might not work for warm reboots. I haven't looked at parallela docs, but if there is a schematic available, that should tell you if/what is connected to the PHY reset pin. Soren
Am 26.01.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Sören Brinkmann: > On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:35AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: >> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Andreas Färber: >>> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek: >>>> On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: >>>>> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to >>>>> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: >>>>> >>>>> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >>>>> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >>>>> f090e100 op: f090e140 >>>>> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >>>>> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT >>>>> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: >>>>> f0910100 op: f0910140 >>>>> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral >>>>> >>>>> Am I missing any other patches or config options? >>>>> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug >>>>> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) >>>> >>>> Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? >>> >>> No, happened without as well. >>> >>> Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: >>> >>> [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup >>> [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' >>> property >>> of node '/phy0[0]' >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' >>> property >>> of node '/phy0[0]' >>> [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup >>> [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO >>> [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 >>> [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' >>> property >>> of node '/phy1[0]' >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' >>> property of node '/phy1[0]' >>> [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed >>> [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO >>> [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 >>> >>> So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a >>> property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two >>> MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified? >> >> Erm, scratch that last question - wrong PHY. Trying it resolved the >> above phy errors but not the original problem. And so does an empty one: >> >> @@ -99,11 +100,13 @@ >> >> usb_phy0: phy0 { >> compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; >> + reset-gpios = <>; >> #phy-cells = <0>; >> }; >> >> usb_phy1: phy1 { >> compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; >> + reset-gpios = <>; >> #phy-cells = <0>; >> }; >> }; >> >> In my manuals and notes I can't find any GPIO being used as reset for >> the USB PHYs. Any thoughts appreciated. > > Such a connection is optional. The platform might rely on its reset > circuit, though it might not work for warm reboots. > I haven't looked at parallela docs, but if there is a schematic > available, that should tell you if/what is connected to the PHY reset > pin. I do have the schematic, and the way I read it, only the on-board reset button resets the PHYs. Yet it looks as if usb-nop-xceiv insists on a reset-gpios above, no? Does it work on your boards with linux-next? And regarding my previous reporting, I was mistaken: I had to increase the log buffer size due to enabled pinctrl debugging, which made the phy errors sometimes appear, depending on timing. They're still there. Andreas
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 05:21PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 26.01.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Sören Brinkmann: > > On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:35AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > >> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Andreas Färber: > >>> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek: > >>>> On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > >>>>> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to > >>>>> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: > >>>>> > >>>>> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > >>>>> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > >>>>> f090e100 op: f090e140 > >>>>> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > >>>>> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > >>>>> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > >>>>> f0910100 op: f0910140 > >>>>> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > >>>>> > >>>>> Am I missing any other patches or config options? > >>>>> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug > >>>>> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) > >>>> > >>>> Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? > >>> > >>> No, happened without as well. > >>> > >>> Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: > >>> > >>> [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup > >>> [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > >>> property > >>> of node '/phy0[0]' > >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > >>> property > >>> of node '/phy0[0]' > >>> [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > >>> [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO > >>> [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 > >>> [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup > >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > >>> property > >>> of node '/phy1[0]' > >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > >>> property of node '/phy1[0]' > >>> [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > >>> [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO > >>> [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 > >>> > >>> So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a > >>> property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two > >>> MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified? > >> > >> Erm, scratch that last question - wrong PHY. Trying it resolved the > >> above phy errors but not the original problem. And so does an empty one: > >> > >> @@ -99,11 +100,13 @@ > >> > >> usb_phy0: phy0 { > >> compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > >> + reset-gpios = <>; > >> #phy-cells = <0>; > >> }; > >> > >> usb_phy1: phy1 { > >> compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > >> + reset-gpios = <>; > >> #phy-cells = <0>; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> In my manuals and notes I can't find any GPIO being used as reset for > >> the USB PHYs. Any thoughts appreciated. > > > > Such a connection is optional. The platform might rely on its reset > > circuit, though it might not work for warm reboots. > > I haven't looked at parallela docs, but if there is a schematic > > available, that should tell you if/what is connected to the PHY reset > > pin. > > I do have the schematic, and the way I read it, only the on-board reset > button resets the PHYs. > > Yet it looks as if usb-nop-xceiv insists on a reset-gpios above, no? > Does it work on your boards with linux-next? I haven't re-tested it since I submitted the patches, but at that time it worked. But I also didn't test USB with the pinctrl patches together. I'll do some testing later today. Soren
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 08:23AM -0800, Sören Brinkmann wrote: > On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 05:21PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Am 26.01.2015 um 16:50 schrieb Sören Brinkmann: > > > On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 10:35AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > > >> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:33 schrieb Andreas Färber: > > >>> Am 26.01.2015 um 09:23 schrieb Michal Simek: > > >>>> On 01/26/2015 09:19 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > > >>>>> And if I apply it to my -next based tree, adding corresponding nodes to > > >>>>> zynq-parallella.dts, I get repeatedly: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> [ +0,012242] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > > >>>>> [ +0,000157] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.0: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > > >>>>> f090e100 op: f090e140 > > >>>>> [ +0,000081] platform ci_hdrc.0: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > > >>>>> [ +0,005360] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: no of_node; not parsing pinctrl DT > > >>>>> [ +0,000120] ci_hdrc ci_hdrc.1: ChipIdea HDRC found, lpm: 0; cap: > > >>>>> f0910100 op: f0910140 > > >>>>> [ +0,001810] platform ci_hdrc.1: Driver ci_hdrc requests probe deferral > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Am I missing any other patches or config options? > > >>>>> (I do notice that the pinctrl v3 patch that got merged has a trivial bug > > >>>>> for usb0, for which I'll send a patch later on.) > > >>>> > > >>>> Why is it deferred? Is it because of pinmuxing stuff? > > >>> > > >>> No, happened without as well. > > >>> > > >>> Looking at a different place in dmesg, I spot this: > > >>> > > >>> [ +0,003988] usb_phy_generic phy0: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: using device tree for GPIO lookup > > >>> [ +0,000015] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > > >>> property > > >>> of node '/phy0[0]' > > >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > > >>> property > > >>> of node '/phy0[0]' > > >>> [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy0: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > > >>> [ +0,000153] usb_phy_generic phy0: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy0: Error requesting RESET GPIO > > >>> [ +0,004360] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy0 failed with error -2 > > >>> [ +0,004991] usb_phy_generic phy1: GPIO lookup for consumer reset-gpios > > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: using device tree for GPIO lookup > > >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpios' > > >>> property > > >>> of node '/phy1[0]' > > >>> [ +0,000013] of_get_named_gpiod_flags: can't parse 'reset-gpios-gpio' > > >>> property of node '/phy1[0]' > > >>> [ +0,000010] usb_phy_generic phy1: using lookup tables for GPIO lookup > > >>> [ +0,000012] usb_phy_generic phy1: lookup for GPIO reset-gpios failed > > >>> [ +0,000011] usb_phy_generic phy1: Error requesting RESET GPIO > > >>> [ +0,004337] usb_phy_generic: probe of phy1 failed with error -2 > > >>> > > >>> So, I guess the chipidea driver is deferring because the phys want a > > >>> property that neither me nor you are specifying? Would that be the two > > >>> MDIO pins 52 and 53 that would need to be specified? > > >> > > >> Erm, scratch that last question - wrong PHY. Trying it resolved the > > >> above phy errors but not the original problem. And so does an empty one: > > >> > > >> @@ -99,11 +100,13 @@ > > >> > > >> usb_phy0: phy0 { > > >> compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > > >> + reset-gpios = <>; > > >> #phy-cells = <0>; > > >> }; > > >> > > >> usb_phy1: phy1 { > > >> compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; > > >> + reset-gpios = <>; > > >> #phy-cells = <0>; > > >> }; > > >> }; > > >> > > >> In my manuals and notes I can't find any GPIO being used as reset for > > >> the USB PHYs. Any thoughts appreciated. > > > > > > Such a connection is optional. The platform might rely on its reset > > > circuit, though it might not work for warm reboots. > > > I haven't looked at parallela docs, but if there is a schematic > > > available, that should tell you if/what is connected to the PHY reset > > > pin. > > > > I do have the schematic, and the way I read it, only the on-board reset > > button resets the PHYs. > > > > Yet it looks as if usb-nop-xceiv insists on a reset-gpios above, no? > > Does it work on your boards with linux-next? > > I haven't re-tested it since I submitted the patches, but at that time > it worked. But I also didn't test USB with the pinctrl patches together. > I'll do some testing later today. So, just did a test. I took all the pinctrl stuff and this patch and ran it on a zc702. I plugged in a thumb drive and that worked just fine. So, basically this patch could go in, despite missing pinctrl properties. Michal: How do you wanna handle this? Could you create a branch that has all the DT updates I can base stuff on, please? We could either take the pinctrl patches and this patch and add another one adding the pinctrl properties to the USB nodes. Or leave this patch out for now and revise it on top of the pinctrl patches. Thanks, Sören
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi index f8e4a28adfc0..21aae01a3fe9 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi @@ -314,5 +314,25 @@ reg = <0xf8f00600 0x20>; clocks = <&clkc 4>; }; + + usb0: usb@e0002000 { + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-usb-2.20a", "chipidea,usb2"; + status = "disabled"; + clocks = <&clkc 28>; + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; + interrupts = <0 21 4>; + reg = <0xe0002000 0x1000>; + phy_type = "ulpi"; + }; + + usb1: usb@e0003000 { + compatible = "xlnx,zynq-usb-2.20a", "chipidea,usb2"; + status = "disabled"; + clocks = <&clkc 29>; + interrupt-parent = <&intc>; + interrupts = <0 44 4>; + reg = <0xe0003000 0x1000>; + phy_type = "ulpi"; + }; }; }; diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts index 280f02dd4ddc..399fed4d9c19 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts @@ -36,6 +36,11 @@ linux,default-trigger = "heartbeat"; }; }; + + usb_phy0: phy0 { + compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; + #phy-cells = <0>; + }; }; &can0 { @@ -139,3 +144,9 @@ &uart1 { status = "okay"; }; + +&usb0 { + status = "okay"; + dr_mode = "host"; + usb-phy = <&usb_phy0>; +}; diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts index 34f7812d2ee8..89cc9adc569d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ bootargs = "console=ttyPS0,115200 earlyprintk"; }; + usb_phy0: phy0 { + compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; + #phy-cells = <0>; + }; }; &clkc { @@ -118,3 +122,9 @@ &uart1 { status = "okay"; }; + +&usb0 { + status = "okay"; + dr_mode = "host"; + usb-phy = <&usb_phy0>; +}; diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts index 1c7cc990b47a..e20956e5e720 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts @@ -27,6 +27,10 @@ bootargs = "console=ttyPS0,115200 earlyprintk"; }; + usb_phy0: phy0 { + compatible = "usb-nop-xceiv"; + #phy-cells = <0>; + }; }; &clkc { @@ -50,3 +54,9 @@ &uart1 { status = "okay"; }; + +&usb0 { + status = "okay"; + dr_mode = "host"; + usb-phy = <&usb_phy0>; +};
Add USB nodes to zc702, zc706 and zed device trees. Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com> --- v3: - rename phy nodes: usb_phy -> phy0 - rebased onto zynq/dt v2: - remove '@0' from phy node name - don't add bogus space --- arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc702.dts | 11 +++++++++++ arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zc706.dts | 10 ++++++++++ arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-zed.dts | 10 ++++++++++ 4 files changed, 51 insertions(+)