[PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix PMU definitions for ACT8600

[PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix PMU definitions for ACT8600

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

There is a ACT8600 on the CI20 board and the bindings of the
ACT8865 driver have changed without updating the CI20 device
tree. Therefore the PMU can not be probed successfully and
is running in power-on reset state.

Fix DT to match the latest act8865-regulator bindings.

Fixes: 73f2b940474d ("MIPS: CI20: DTS: Add I2C nodes")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
---
 arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts | 47 ++++++++++++++++++++---------
 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
index 59c104289ece..ae391e0cd38a 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
 #include "jz4780.dtsi"
 #include <dt-bindings/clock/ingenic,tcu.h>
 #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
+#include <dt-bindings/regulator/active-semi,8865-regulator.h>
 
 / {
 	compatible = "img,ci20", "ingenic,jz4780";
@@ -166,65 +167,81 @@
 		reg = <0x5a>;
 		status = "okay";
 
+/*
+Optional input supply properties:
+- for act8600:
+  - vp1-supply: The input supply for DCDC_REG1
+  - vp2-supply: The input supply for DCDC_REG2
+  - vp3-supply: The input supply for DCDC_REG3
+  - inl-supply: The input supply for LDO_REG5, LDO_REG6, LDO_REG7 and LDO_REG8
+  SUDCDC_REG4, LDO_REG9 and LDO_REG10 do not have separate supplies.
+*/
+
 		regulators {
 			vddcore: SUDCDC1 {
-				regulator-name = "VDDCORE";
+				regulator-name = "DCDC_REG1";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			vddmem: SUDCDC2 {
-				regulator-name = "VDDMEM";
+				regulator-name = "DCDC_REG2";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <1500000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			vcc_33: SUDCDC3 {
-				regulator-name = "VCC33";
+				regulator-name = "DCDC_REG3";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			vcc_50: SUDCDC4 {
-				regulator-name = "VCC50";
+				regulator-name = "SUDCDC_REG4";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <5000000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			vcc_25: LDO_REG5 {
-				regulator-name = "VCC25";
+				regulator-name = "LDO_REG5";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <2500000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <2500000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			wifi_io: LDO_REG6 {
-				regulator-name = "WIFIIO";
+				regulator-name = "LDO_REG6";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <2500000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <2500000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			vcc_28: LDO_REG7 {
-				regulator-name = "VCC28";
+				regulator-name = "LDO_REG7";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <2800000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <2800000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			vcc_15: LDO_REG8 {
-				regulator-name = "VCC15";
+				regulator-name = "LDO_REG8";
 				regulator-min-microvolt = <1500000>;
 				regulator-max-microvolt = <1500000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
-			vcc_18: LDO_REG9 {
-				regulator-name = "VCC18";
-				regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>;
-				regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>;
+			vrtc_18: LDO_REG9 {
+				regulator-name = "LDO_REG9";
+				/* Despite the datasheet stating 3.3V for REG9 and
+				   driver expecting that, REG9 outputs 1.8V.
+				   Likely the CI20 uses a chip variant.
+				   Since it is a simple on/off LDO the exact values
+				   do not matter.
+				*/
+				regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>;
+				regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 			vcc_11: LDO_REG10 {
-				regulator-name = "VCC11";
-				regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>;
-				regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>;
+				regulator-name = "LDO_REG10";
+				regulator-min-microvolt = <1200000>;
+				regulator-max-microvolt = <1200000>;
 				regulator-always-on;
 			};
 		};
-- 
2.23.0

[PATCH v5 3/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix interrupt for pcf8563 RTC

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Interrupts should not be specified by interrupt line but by
gpio parent and reference.

Fixes: 73f2b940474d ("MIPS: CI20: DTS: Add I2C nodes")
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns@goldelico.com>
Reviewed-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@crapouillou.net>
---
 arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
index ae391e0cd38a..0251ca154ccb 100644
--- a/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
+++ b/arch/mips/boot/dts/ingenic/ci20.dts
@@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
 #include "jz4780.dtsi"
 #include <dt-bindings/clock/ingenic,tcu.h>
 #include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
+#include <dt-bindings/interrupt-controller/irq.h>
 #include <dt-bindings/regulator/active-semi,8865-regulator.h>
 
 / {
@@ -283,7 +284,9 @@ Optional input supply properties:
 		rtc@51 {
 			compatible = "nxp,pcf8563";
 			reg = <0x51>;
-			interrupts = <110>;
+
+			interrupt-parent = <&gpf>;
+			interrupts = <30 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
 		};
 };
 
-- 
2.23.0

Re: [PATCH v5 3/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix interrupt for pcf8563 RTC

[Sasha Levin]

Hi

[This is an automated email]

This commit has been processed because it contains a "Fixes:" tag
fixing commit: 73f2b940474d ("MIPS: CI20: DTS: Add I2C nodes").

The bot has tested the following trees: v5.5.7.

v5.5.7: Failed to apply! Possible dependencies:
    5314215430e5 ("MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix PMU definitions for ACT8600")


NOTE: The patch will not be queued to stable trees until it is upstream.

How should we proceed with this patch?

-- 
Thanks
Sasha

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix PMU definitions for ACT8600

[Thomas Bogendoerfer]

On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 08:45:45PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> There is a ACT8600 on the CI20 board and the bindings of the
> ACT8865 driver have changed without updating the CI20 device
> tree. Therefore the PMU can not be probed successfully and
> is running in power-on reset state.
> 
> Fix DT to match the latest act8865-regulator bindings.
> 
> Fixes: 73f2b940474d ("MIPS: CI20: DTS: Add I2C nodes")

I see checkpatch warnings in this patch, could please fix them ?
And please seperate fixes from improvments, thank you.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix PMU definitions for ACT8600

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi Thomas,

> Am 03.03.2020 um 11:18 schrieb Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>:
> 
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 08:45:45PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>> There is a ACT8600 on the CI20 board and the bindings of the
>> ACT8865 driver have changed without updating the CI20 device
>> tree. Therefore the PMU can not be probed successfully and
>> is running in power-on reset state.
>> 
>> Fix DT to match the latest act8865-regulator bindings.
>> 
>> Fixes: 73f2b940474d ("MIPS: CI20: DTS: Add I2C nodes")
> 
> I see checkpatch warnings in this patch, could please fix them ?

Ah, ok. The comment. Well, on a 5k screen this 80 character limit
is really outdated. But checkpatch is the king :)

Noted for v6.

> And please seperate fixes from improvments, thank you.

What do you mean by "separate"? Two separate patches?
This patch only contains fixes (which I would consider
all of them to be improvements).

> 
> Thomas.

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix PMU definitions for ACT8600

[Thomas Bogendoerfer]

On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 01:10:22PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> > And please seperate fixes from improvments, thank you.
> 
> What do you mean by "separate"? Two separate patches?
> This patch only contains fixes (which I would consider
> all of them to be improvements).

There are two patches with Fixes tag, which IMHO should go
into 5.6 via mips-fixes branch. All others are going
via mips-next into 5.7. So it helps me, if they come in different
patch series (or as single patches).

I see other DT changes in your other patch series. Are the changes
there independent from each other or do they require correct order
when appling them ?

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

Re: [PATCH v5 2/5] MIPS: DTS: CI20: fix PMU definitions for ACT8600

[H. Nikolaus Schaller]

> Am 03.03.2020 um 13:32 schrieb Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>:
> 
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 01:10:22PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
>>> And please seperate fixes from improvments, thank you.
>> 
>> What do you mean by "separate"? Two separate patches?
>> This patch only contains fixes (which I would consider
>> all of them to be improvements).
> 
> There are two patches with Fixes tag, which IMHO should go
> into 5.6 via mips-fixes branch. All others are going
> via mips-next into 5.7. So it helps me, if they come in different
> patch series (or as single patches).

Ah, ok. I didn't know that there are two branches and originally
I didn't see them as fixes - they became by review suggestions.

> I see other DT changes in your other patch series. Are the changes
> there independent from each other or do they require correct order
> when appling them ?

I think they are independent. Only the fixes should go to stable as well.
The others can wait.

> 
> Thomas.

BR and thanks,
Nikolaus