* [PATCH] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mt65xx: Update binding example @ 2020-09-04 19:33 Boris Lysov 2020-09-07 1:28 ` Qii Wang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Boris Lysov @ 2020-09-04 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-i2c; +Cc: qii.wang, robh+dt, matthias.bgg, devicetree Example uses values for MT6589 SoC, but MT6577 was specified in "compatible" property. Signed-off-by: Boris Lysov <arzamas-16@mail.ee> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt index 7f0194fdd0cc..acf3d4d28b98 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Optional properties: Example: i2c0: i2c@1100d000 { - compatible = "mediatek,mt6577-i2c"; + compatible = "mediatek,mt6589-i2c"; reg = <0x1100d000 0x70>, <0x11000300 0x80>; interrupts = <GIC_SPI 44 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; -- 2.28.0 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mt65xx: Update binding example 2020-09-04 19:33 [PATCH] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mt65xx: Update binding example Boris Lysov @ 2020-09-07 1:28 ` Qii Wang 2020-09-07 15:08 ` Boris Lysov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Qii Wang @ 2020-09-07 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Boris Lysov; +Cc: linux-i2c, robh+dt, matthias.bgg, devicetree On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 22:33 +0300, Boris Lysov wrote: > Example uses values for MT6589 SoC, but MT6577 was specified in "compatible" property. > Why do you think the example is MT6589 SoC, not MT6577? > Signed-off-by: Boris Lysov <arzamas-16@mail.ee> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt > index 7f0194fdd0cc..acf3d4d28b98 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-mt65xx.txt > @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Optional properties: > Example: > > i2c0: i2c@1100d000 { > - compatible = "mediatek,mt6577-i2c"; > + compatible = "mediatek,mt6589-i2c"; > reg = <0x1100d000 0x70>, > <0x11000300 0x80>; > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 44 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mt65xx: Update binding example 2020-09-07 1:28 ` Qii Wang @ 2020-09-07 15:08 ` Boris Lysov 2020-09-14 2:09 ` Qii Wang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Boris Lysov @ 2020-09-07 15:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Qii Wang; +Cc: linux-i2c, robh+dt, matthias.bgg, devicetree On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:28:07 +0800 Qii Wang <qii.wang@mediatek.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 22:33 +0300, Boris Lysov wrote: > > Example uses values for MT6589 SoC, but MT6577 was specified in "compatible" property. > > > > Why do you think the example is MT6589 SoC, not MT6577? > The best way to explain why it's for MT6589 instead of MT6577 is to provide an example ;) I will refer to various downstream Linux kernel sources, I hope sharing GitHub links is appropriate. This is the kernel source code of Lenovo P780 (MT6589) https://github.com/andreya108/bindu-kernel-mediatek mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_reg_base.h , line 115: > #define I2C0_BASE 0xF100D000 This address is virtual, and it translates into physical address 0x1100D000 0x1100D000 equals to the value in example mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/mt_devs.c , line 846: > .end = IO_VIRT_TO_PHYS(I2C0_BASE) + 0x70, 0x70 shows length of memory region, which also equals to the value in example mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/drivers/i2c/i2c.c , line 1140: > i2c->pdmabase = AP_DMA_BASE + 0x300 + (0x80*(i2c->id)); For id=0, physical pdmabase is 0x11000300 which also matches the address in example mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_irq.h , line 29: > #define MT_I2C0_IRQ_ID (GIC_PRIVATE_SIGNALS + 44) The IRQ ID (44) equals to one specified in dt-binding example: > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 44 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; These values are same for other MT6589 devices, here are few other repositories containing same lines of code as above (line numbers might be off for a few lines, but the values I am referring to are same): Micromax A116 (MT6589) - https://github.com/neomanu/NeoKernel-MT6589-A116 Acer V370 (MT6589) - https://github.com/Shr3ps/android_kernel_acer_V370_MT6589 bq Aquaris 5.7 (MT6589) - https://github.com/luckasfb/aquaris-5.7 Now lets take a look at MT6577 devices. This is the kernel source code of ZTE v970: https://github.com/dragonpt/Kernel_3.4.67_KK_ZTE_v970 mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_reg_base.h , line 68: > #define I2C0_BASE 0xF1012000 This address is virtual, and it translates into physical address 0xC1012000 0xC1012000 does not equal to 0x1100d000 listed in example! mediatek/platform/mt6577/kernel/drivers/i2c/i2c.c No mentions of pdmabase. There are no DMA addresses in this file! mediatek/platform/mt6577/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_irq.h , line 70: > #define MT_I2C0_IRQ_ID (GIC_PRIVATE_SIGNALS + 49) The IRQ ID (49) does not match the ID (44) specified in example! Other MT6577 kernels with same values: Acer V360 (MT6577) - https://github.com/aquila-dev/mt6577_kernel3.4 Acer C10 (MT6577) - https://github.com/Dr-Shadow/android_kernel_acer_c10 Wiko Cink Slim (MT6577) - https://github.com/theboleslaw/kernel_wiko_s8073 As you can see, current dt-binding example represents MT6589 SoC values, not MT6577. I have sent additional email about i2c-mt65xx and MT6577 compatibility, where I voiced my concerns about I2C DMA on that SoC. I hope you can look into it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mt65xx: Update binding example 2020-09-07 15:08 ` Boris Lysov @ 2020-09-14 2:09 ` Qii Wang 2020-10-25 18:53 ` Boris Lysov 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Qii Wang @ 2020-09-14 2:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Boris Lysov; +Cc: linux-i2c, robh+dt, matthias.bgg, devicetree On Mon, 2020-09-07 at 18:08 +0300, Boris Lysov wrote: > On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 09:28:07 +0800 > Qii Wang <qii.wang@mediatek.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, 2020-09-04 at 22:33 +0300, Boris Lysov wrote: > > > Example uses values for MT6589 SoC, but MT6577 was specified in "compatible" property. > > > > > > > Why do you think the example is MT6589 SoC, not MT6577? > > > > The best way to explain why it's for MT6589 instead of MT6577 is to provide > an example ;) I will refer to various downstream Linux kernel sources, I hope > sharing GitHub links is appropriate. > > > This is the kernel source code of Lenovo P780 (MT6589) > https://github.com/andreya108/bindu-kernel-mediatek > > mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_reg_base.h , line 115: > > #define I2C0_BASE 0xF100D000 > This address is virtual, and it translates into physical address 0x1100D000 > 0x1100D000 equals to the value in example > > mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/mt_devs.c , line 846: > > .end = IO_VIRT_TO_PHYS(I2C0_BASE) + 0x70, > 0x70 shows length of memory region, which also equals to the value in example > > mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/drivers/i2c/i2c.c , line 1140: > > i2c->pdmabase = AP_DMA_BASE + 0x300 + (0x80*(i2c->id)); > For id=0, physical pdmabase is 0x11000300 which also matches the address in example > > mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_irq.h , line 29: > > #define MT_I2C0_IRQ_ID (GIC_PRIVATE_SIGNALS + 44) > The IRQ ID (44) equals to one specified in dt-binding example: > > interrupts = <GIC_SPI 44 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; > > These values are same for other MT6589 devices, here are few other repositories > containing same lines of code as above (line numbers might be off for a few lines, > but the values I am referring to are same): > Micromax A116 (MT6589) - https://github.com/neomanu/NeoKernel-MT6589-A116 > Acer V370 (MT6589) - https://github.com/Shr3ps/android_kernel_acer_V370_MT6589 > bq Aquaris 5.7 (MT6589) - https://github.com/luckasfb/aquaris-5.7 > > > Now lets take a look at MT6577 devices. This is the kernel source code of ZTE v970: > https://github.com/dragonpt/Kernel_3.4.67_KK_ZTE_v970 > > mediatek/platform/mt6589/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_reg_base.h , line 68: > > #define I2C0_BASE 0xF1012000 > This address is virtual, and it translates into physical address 0xC1012000 > 0xC1012000 does not equal to 0x1100d000 listed in example! > > mediatek/platform/mt6577/kernel/drivers/i2c/i2c.c > No mentions of pdmabase. There are no DMA addresses in this file! > > mediatek/platform/mt6577/kernel/core/include/mach/mt_irq.h , line 70: > > #define MT_I2C0_IRQ_ID (GIC_PRIVATE_SIGNALS + 49) > The IRQ ID (49) does not match the ID (44) specified in example! > > Other MT6577 kernels with same values: > Acer V360 (MT6577) - https://github.com/aquila-dev/mt6577_kernel3.4 > Acer C10 (MT6577) - https://github.com/Dr-Shadow/android_kernel_acer_c10 > Wiko Cink Slim (MT6577) - https://github.com/theboleslaw/kernel_wiko_s8073 > > > As you can see, current dt-binding example represents MT6589 SoC values, not MT6577. > I have sent additional email about i2c-mt65xx and MT6577 compatibility, where > I voiced my concerns about I2C DMA on that SoC. I hope you can look into it. None of the examples you cited are the upstream code of our official release, and the name of customer's SOC cannot be accurately evaluated. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mt65xx: Update binding example 2020-09-14 2:09 ` Qii Wang @ 2020-10-25 18:53 ` Boris Lysov 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Boris Lysov @ 2020-10-25 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Qii Wang; +Cc: linux-i2c, robh+dt, matthias.bgg, devicetree On Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:09:46 +0800 Qii Wang <qii.wang@mediatek.com> wrote: > None of the examples you cited are the upstream code of our official > release Where can I access the official upstream release for both MT6577 and MT6589? Me and other developers would certainly like to research it. > , and the name of customer's SOC cannot be accurately evaluated. I'm sorry, but I don't understand what do you mean by "customer's SOC". I own a device with MT6577, and in all source code bundles I had listed in the previous message the SoCs are either MT6577 or MT6589. As of now, the code in the example of i2c-mt65xx driver documentation is declared compatible with MT6577, but it clearly does *not* work on actual MT6577 SoC. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-10-25 19:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2020-09-04 19:33 [PATCH] dt-bindings: i2c: i2c-mt65xx: Update binding example Boris Lysov 2020-09-07 1:28 ` Qii Wang 2020-09-07 15:08 ` Boris Lysov 2020-09-14 2:09 ` Qii Wang 2020-10-25 18:53 ` Boris Lysov
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).