From: sashiko-bot@kernel.org
To: genevieve.chan@altera.com
Cc: conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: socfpga: agilex: add Agilex7F SoCDK multi-QSPI board
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2026 02:58:45 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260914025846.508551F000FF@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260914025052.14354-3-genevieve.chan@altera.com>
Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 2 potential issue(s) to consider:
- [Medium] Duplicate MTD partition labels across multiple QSPI flashes will cause naming collisions.
- [Low] Incorrect alphabetical sorting in the Makefile.
--
commit 43a050c9384cc9ad44970b1e567a46311025cd69
Author: Genevieve Chan <genevieve.chan@altera.com>
arm64: dts: socfpga: agilex: add Agilex7F SoCDK multi-QSPI board
This patch adds a board device tree for the Agilex7F SoCDK with multi-QSPI
support. It describes four Micron MT25QU02G flashes on chip selects 0-3 based
on the socfpga_agilex.dtsi include.
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/intel/Makefile b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/intel/Makefile
> index 270c70fdf084b..9298ab8b93142 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/intel/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/intel/Makefile
> @@ -10,5 +10,6 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_INTEL_SOCFPGA) += socfpga_agilex_n6000.dtb \
> socfpga_agilex5_socdk_nand.dtb \
> socfpga_agilex72_socdk.dtb \
> socfpga_agilex7m_socdk.dtb \
> + socfpga_agilex7f_socdk_multiqspi.dtb \
[Severity: Low]
Does this Makefile addition break alphabetical sorting?
The new entry socfpga_agilex7f_socdk_multiqspi.dtb under
dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_INTEL_SOCFPGA) is inserted after socfpga_agilex7m_socdk.dtb,
rather than before it.
> socfpga_n5x_socdk.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_KEEMBAY) += keembay-evm.dtb
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/intel/socfpga_agilex7f_socdk_multiqspi.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/intel/socfpga_agilex7f_socdk_multiqspi.dts
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000000000..7d444a84fd67a
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/intel/socfpga_agilex7f_socdk_multiqspi.dts
[ ... ]
> + flash@0 {
> + compatible = "micron,mt25qu02g", "jedec,spi-nor";
> + reg = <0>;
[ ... ]
> + partitions {
> + compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> + qspi_boot0: partition@0 {
> + label = "Boot and fpga data";
> + reg = <0x0 0x10000000>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
> +
> + flash@1 {
> + compatible = "micron,mt25qu02g", "jedec,spi-nor";
> + reg = <1>;
[ ... ]
> + partitions {
> + compatible = "fixed-partitions";
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> +
> + qspi_boot1: partition@0 {
> + label = "Boot and fpga data";
[Severity: Medium]
Will these duplicate partition labels cause naming collisions in the MTD
subsystem?
Since the device tree parses these four partitions (qspi_boot0 through
qspi_boot3) and registers them with the exact same label ("Boot and fpga
data") for flash@0 through flash@3, they will create duplicate MTD
partition names in the kernel (e.g., in /proc/mtd).
Userspace tools like mtd-utils that rely on finding MTD partitions by name
might be unable to distinguish between the physical chips. Could this lead
to data corruption if the wrong flash is updated?
> + reg = <0x0 0x10000000>;
> + };
> + };
> + };
[ ... ]
--
Sashiko AI review · https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260914025052.14354-1-genevieve.chan@altera.com?part=2
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-14 2:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-09-14 2:50 [PATCH 0/2] arm64: dts: socfpga: agilex: add Agilex7F SoCDK multi-QSPI board genevieve.chan
2026-09-14 2:50 ` [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: altera: add Agilex7F SoCDK multi-QSPI compatible genevieve.chan
2026-09-15 10:49 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2026-09-29 13:42 ` Chan, Genevieve
2026-09-14 2:50 ` [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: socfpga: agilex: add Agilex7F SoCDK multi-QSPI board genevieve.chan
2026-09-14 2:58 ` sashiko-bot [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260914025846.508551F000FF@smtp.kernel.org \
--to=sashiko-bot@kernel.org \
--cc=conor+dt@kernel.org \
--cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=genevieve.chan@altera.com \
--cc=robh@kernel.org \
--cc=sashiko-reviews@lists.linux.dev \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox