Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] arm64: dts: allwinner: A133: add support for Baijie Helper A133 board

[sashiko-bot@kernel.org]

Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Low] Misplaced `vcc-pl-supply` property and incorrect architectural attribution in comments.
- [Low] Commit message contradiction regarding USB topology.
--

commit d668428c158ab5f1654141d1c2e6dd96b970af49
Author: Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com>

arm64: dts: allwinner: A133: add support for Baijie Helper A133 board

Add initial support for both the Helper and Core boards, including UART,
PMU, eMMC, USB, Ethernet, and LRADC-connected buttons.

> Baijie Helper A133 board is a development board around Baijie A133 Core
> SBC. Features:
> 
> - 1/2/4GiB LPDDR4 DRAM
> - 8/16/32GiB eMMC
> - AXP707 PMIC
> - USB-C OTG port in peripheral mode (via onboard hub)

This isn't a bug, but is the description of the USB topology accurate?

A USB port operating in peripheral mode cannot be routed through a standard
downstream USB hub to act as a device, as USB hubs are strictly
host-to-device interfaces.

Does the onboard hub instead connect to the ehci1/ohci1 host port to
provide the 2 USB 2.0 ports, while the usb_otg port is directly
connected to the USB-C port?

[ ... ]

> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a133-baijie-core.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a133-baijie-core.dtsi
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..7a09a5181c03b
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-a133-baijie-core.dtsi

[ ... ]

> +&pio {
> +	vcc-pb-supply = <&reg_dcdc1>;
> +	vcc-pc-supply = <&reg_eldo1>;
> +	vcc-pd-supply = <&reg_dcdc1>;
> +	vcc-pe-supply = <&reg_dldo2>;
> +	vcc-pf-supply = <&reg_dcdc1>;
> +	vcc-pg-supply = <&reg_dldo1>;
> +	vcc-ph-supply = <&reg_dcdc1>;
> +	/*
> +	 * PL0/PL1 are the I2C connection to PMIC, but it would create a
> +	 * circular dependency:
> +	 * vcc-pl-supply = <&reg_aldo3>;
> +	 */
> +};

Does this comment accurately reflect the hardware architecture?

In Allwinner A100/A133 SoCs, the main pio pin controller manages banks
PB through PH, while Port L (PL) pins are managed by a separate r_pio
controller in the PRCM domain.

If vcc-pl-supply were uncommented here, wouldn't it simply be ignored
by the pio node rather than creating a circular dependency? Should this
property and comment instead be associated with the r_pio node?

[ ... ]

> +&reg_aldo3 {
> +	/*
> +	 * Port L, but linking it to &pio node would create a circular
> +	 * dependency because of PL0/PL1 I2C connection to PMIC
> +	 */
> +	regulator-always-on;
> +	regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;

Similarly here, should this comment refer to the r_pio node instead of
the pio node?

-- 
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260517234134.2737320-1-alexander.sverdlin@gmail.com?part=4