Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
Subsystems (2)
cover Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add support for the Anbernic RG35XX-SP handheld gaming device. The Anbernic RG35XX-SP is a clamshell device, but hardware wise is very similar to the RG35XX-Plus. The RG35XX-SP has a lid-switch and an external RTC that necessitate a distinct device tree.
Chris Morgan (2):
dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 ++- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts
Signature · 1 line
2.34.1
PATCH 1/2 dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic H700 devices.
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor.
--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 +++++++------------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +9 -15
@@ -51,25 +51,19 @@ properties: - const: allwinner,parrot - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33 - - description: Anbernic RG-Nano - items: - - const: anbernic,rg-nano - - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s - - - description: Anbernic RG35XX (2024) - items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-2024 - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700 - - - description: Anbernic RG35XX Plus + - description: Anbernic H700 Handheld Gaming Console items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-plus + - enum: + - anbernic,rg35xx-2024 + - anbernic,rg35xx-h + - anbernic,rg35xx-plus + - anbernic,rg35xx-sp - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700 - - description: Anbernic RG35XX H + - description: Anbernic RG-Nano items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-h - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700 + - const: anbernic,rg-nano + - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s - description: Amarula A64 Relic items:
Signature · 1 line
2.34.1
Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
Quoted 7 lines · Chris Morgan
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic H700 devices.
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
In reply to Chris MorganOn Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:38 -0500
Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Quoted 23 lines
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic H700 devices.
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 +++++++------------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +0
-2@@ -51,25 +51,19 @@ properties: - const: allwinner,parrot - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33 - - description: Anbernic RG-Nano - items:
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml properties: · line 54
Quoted 10 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +1
-9- - const: anbernic,rg-nano - - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s - - - description: Anbernic RG35XX (2024) - items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-2024 - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700 - - - description: Anbernic RG35XX Plus + - description: Anbernic H700 Handheld Gaming Console
So that's certainly an interesting optimisation, but so far we were using one entry per device, it seems.
I am not entirely sure what the purpose of this file is, exactly: just to document the compatible names, to reserve them and avoid clashes in the future? Or also to put some official names to each device? That seems to somewhat overlap with the root node's model property in the respective device .dts, though.
It would be good to clarify this, and establish how to group those devices. I mean technically we could for instance put *all* H6 devices into one entry, using the same scheme as below.
Not sure that's desired, though.
Cheers,
Andre
Quoted 19 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +8
-4items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-plus + - enum: + - anbernic,rg35xx-2024 + - anbernic,rg35xx-h + - anbernic,rg35xx-plus + - anbernic,rg35xx-sp - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700 - - description: Anbernic RG35XX H + - description: Anbernic RG-Nano items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-h - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700 + - const: anbernic,rg-nano + - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s - description: Amarula A64 Relic items:
Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
Hi,
Quoted 32 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 30 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:38 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic H700 devices.
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 +++++++------------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +0
-9@@ -51,25 +51,19 @@ properties: - const: allwinner,parrot - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33 - - description: Anbernic RG-Nano - items: - - const: anbernic,rg-nano - - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s - - - description: Anbernic RG35XX (2024) - items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-2024 - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700
Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml properties: · line 54
Quoted 3 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +1
-2- - - description: Anbernic RG35XX Plus + - description: Anbernic H700 Handheld Gaming ConsoleSo that's certainly an interesting optimisation, but so far we were using one entry per device, it seems.
I am not entirely sure what the purpose of this file is, exactly: just to document the compatible names
That was the initial intent, yes.
Quoted 1 line
to reserve them and avoid clashes in the future?
And I guess it helps with that too :)
Quoted 3 lines
Or also to put some official names to each device? That seems to somewhat overlap with the root node's model property in the respective device .dts, though.
I guess it's a fair criticism. It would be hard to collect all the compatibles without describing which device they belong too though. So yeah, there's some redundancy, but removing the descriptions entirely would be worse imo.
Quoted 4 lines
It would be good to clarify this, and establish how to group those devices. I mean technically we could for instance put *all* H6 devices into one entry, using the same scheme as below.
Not sure that's desired, though.
I don't really have a say there anymore, but I always tend to prefer consistency in documentation as a user. Even more so since that kind of categorization tends to be very subjective and thus super inconsistent.
Maxime
Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
Quoted 64 lines · Maxime Ripard
Hi,
Quoted 32 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 30 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:38 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic H700 devices.
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 +++++++------------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +0
-9@@ -51,25 +51,19 @@ properties: - const: allwinner,parrot - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33 - - description: Anbernic RG-Nano - items: - - const: anbernic,rg-nano - - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s - - - description: Anbernic RG35XX (2024) - items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-2024 - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml properties: · line 54
Quoted 3 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +1
-2- - - description: Anbernic RG35XX Plus + - description: Anbernic H700 Handheld Gaming ConsoleSo that's certainly an interesting optimisation, but so far we were using one entry per device, it seems.
I am not entirely sure what the purpose of this file is, exactly: just to document the compatible namesThat was the initial intent, yes.
Quoted 1 line
to reserve them and avoid clashes in the future?
And I guess it helps with that too :)
Quoted 3 lines
Or also to put some official names to each device? That seems to somewhat overlap with the root node's model property in the respective device .dts, though.
I guess it's a fair criticism. It would be hard to collect all the compatibles without describing which device they belong too though. So yeah, there's some redundancy, but removing the descriptions entirely would be worse imo.
Quoted 4 lines
It would be good to clarify this, and establish how to group those devices. I mean technically we could for instance put *all* H6 devices into one entry, using the same scheme as below.
Not sure that's desired, though.
Quoted 5 lines
I don't really have a say there anymore, but I always tend to prefer consistency in documentation as a user. Even more so since that kind of categorization tends to be very subjective and thus super inconsistent.
Maxime
This is how I was asked to do it in the rockchip.yaml file [1], but I know different teams have different style requests. Just let me know what you prefer and I'll get it done that way.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Thank you,
Chris.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
Quoted 70 lines · Chris Morgan
Quoted 68 lines · Maxime Ripard
Hi,
Quoted 32 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 30 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:38 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add the Anbernic RG35XXSP variant device and consolidate the Anbernic H700 devices.
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- .../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 +++++++------------ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +0
-9@@ -51,25 +51,19 @@ properties: - const: allwinner,parrot - const: allwinner,sun8i-a33 - - description: Anbernic RG-Nano - items: - - const: anbernic,rg-nano - - const: allwinner,sun8i-v3s - - - description: Anbernic RG35XX (2024) - items: - - const: anbernic,rg35xx-2024 - - const: allwinner,sun50i-h700Quoted 8 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml properties: · line 54
Quoted 3 lines
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml +1
-2- - - description: Anbernic RG35XX Plus + - description: Anbernic H700 Handheld Gaming ConsoleSo that's certainly an interesting optimisation, but so far we were using one entry per device, it seems.
I am not entirely sure what the purpose of this file is, exactly: just to document the compatible namesThat was the initial intent, yes.
Quoted 1 line
to reserve them and avoid clashes in the future?
And I guess it helps with that too :)
Quoted 3 lines
Or also to put some official names to each device? That seems to somewhat overlap with the root node's model property in the respective device .dts, though.
I guess it's a fair criticism. It would be hard to collect all the compatibles without describing which device they belong too though. So yeah, there's some redundancy, but removing the descriptions entirely would be worse imo.
Quoted 4 lines
It would be good to clarify this, and establish how to group those devices. I mean technically we could for instance put *all* H6 devices into one entry, using the same scheme as below.
Not sure that's desired, though.I don't really have a say there anymore, but I always tend to prefer consistency in documentation as a user. Even more so since that kind of categorization tends to be very subjective and thus super inconsistent.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Maxime
This is how I was asked to do it in the
rockchip.yamlfile [1], but I know different teams have different style requests. Just let me know what you prefer and I'll get it done that way.
For now, please just keep each board entry separate to keep the same style as the rest of the file.
ChenYu
Quoted 4 lines
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Thank you,
Chris.
PATCH 2/2 arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
In reply to Chris MorganFrom: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor. The key differences between the SP and the Plus is a lid switch and an RTC on the same i2c bus as the PMIC.
--- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile +2 -1
@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero2w.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero3.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-transpeed-8k618-t.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-2024.dtb -dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-h.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtb
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +145 -0
145 lines not on this page · raw message
Signature · 1 line
2.34.1
Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
Quoted 50 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:39 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor. The key differences between the SP and the Plus is a lid switch and an RTC on the same i2c bus as the PMIC.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtsarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile +2
-1@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero2w.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero3.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-transpeed-8k618-t.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-2024.dtb -dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-h.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtbarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +19
-0@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +/* + * Copyright (C) 2024 Ryan Walklin <[email protected]>. + * Copyright (C) 2024 Chris Morgan <[email protected]>. + */ + +#include <dt-bindings/input/gpio-keys.h> +#include "sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dts" + +/ { + model = "Anbernic RG35XX SP"; + compatible = "anbernic,rg35xx-sp", "allwinner,sun50i-h700"; + + gpio-keys-lid { + compatible = "gpio-keys"; + + lid-switch { + label = "Lid Switch"; + gpios = <&pio 4 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* PE7 */
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 29
Quoted 10 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +10
-0+ linux,can-disable; + linux,code = <SW_LID>; + linux,input-type = <EV_SW>; + wakeup-event-action = <EV_ACT_DEASSERTED>; + wakeup-source; + }; + }; +}; + +/delete-node/ &r_rsb;
I don't think deleting the *RSB* node is right here, if at all, I'd expect status="disabled", and then maybe deleting the axp717 node within? Or maybe factor the AXP node out into a separate file, and include it from the -2024.dts and from this one?
Or move every board to I2C?
What do people think about this?
Cheers,
Andre
Quoted 116 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +116
-0+ +&r_i2c { + pinctrl-0 = <&r_i2c_pins>; + pinctrl-names = "default"; + status = "okay"; + + axp717: pmic@34 { + compatible = "x-powers,axp717"; + reg = <0x34>; + interrupt-controller; + #interrupt-cells = <1>; + interrupt-parent = <&nmi_intc>; + interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; + + vin1-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin2-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin3-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin4-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + + regulators { + reg_dcdc1: dcdc1 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <900000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-cpu"; + }; + + reg_dcdc2: dcdc2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-gpu-sys"; + }; + + reg_dcdc3: dcdc3 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-dram"; + }; + + reg_aldo1: aldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo2: aldo2 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo3: aldo3 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo4: aldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pg"; + }; + + reg_bldo1: bldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo2: bldo2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pll"; + }; + + reg_bldo3: bldo3 { + /* 2.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo4: bldo4 { + /* 1.2v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo1: cldo1 { + /* 3.3v - audio codec - not yet implemented */ + }; + + reg_cldo2: cldo2 { + /* 3.3v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo3: cldo3 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-io"; + }; + + reg_cldo4: cldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-wifi"; + }; + + reg_boost: boost { + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <5200000>; + regulator-name = "boost"; + }; + + reg_cpusldo: cpusldo { + /* unused */ + }; + }; + }; + + rtc_ext: rtc@51 { + compatible = "nxp,pcf8563"; + reg = <0x51>; + }; +};
Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
Quoted 61 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 57 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:39 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor. The key differences between the SP and the Plus is a lid switch and an RTC on the same i2c bus as the PMIC.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtsarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile +2
-1@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero2w.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero3.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-transpeed-8k618-t.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-2024.dtb -dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-h.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtbarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +26
-0@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +/* + * Copyright (C) 2024 Ryan Walklin <[email protected]>. + * Copyright (C) 2024 Chris Morgan <[email protected]>. + */ + +#include <dt-bindings/input/gpio-keys.h> +#include "sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dts" + +/ { + model = "Anbernic RG35XX SP"; + compatible = "anbernic,rg35xx-sp", "allwinner,sun50i-h700"; + + gpio-keys-lid { + compatible = "gpio-keys"; + + lid-switch { + label = "Lid Switch"; + gpios = <&pio 4 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* PE7 */ + linux,can-disable; + linux,code = <SW_LID>; + linux,input-type = <EV_SW>; + wakeup-event-action = <EV_ACT_DEASSERTED>; + wakeup-source; + }; + };
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 29
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +3
-0+}; + +/delete-node/ &r_rsb;I don't think deleting the *RSB* node is right here, if at all, I'd expect status="disabled", and then maybe deleting the axp717 node within? Or maybe factor the AXP node out into a separate file, and include it from the -2024.dts and from this one?
Doesn't quite work because the unit address is different.
Quoted 1 line
Or move every board to I2C?
Doesn't this depend on the bootloader also running in RSB mode? My memory is a bit foggy on this, but IIRC we did a conversion on some other boards before?
Quoted 1 line
What do people think about this?
"disabled" in RSB node and deleting the axp717 node is probably the right thing to do.
Quoted 39 lines
Cheers,
AndreQuoted 36 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +36
-0+ +&r_i2c { + pinctrl-0 = <&r_i2c_pins>; + pinctrl-names = "default"; + status = "okay"; + + axp717: pmic@34 { + compatible = "x-powers,axp717"; + reg = <0x34>; + interrupt-controller; + #interrupt-cells = <1>; + interrupt-parent = <&nmi_intc>; + interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; + + vin1-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin2-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin3-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin4-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + + regulators { + reg_dcdc1: dcdc1 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <900000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-cpu"; + }; + + reg_dcdc2: dcdc2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-gpu-sys"; + }; + + reg_dcdc3: dcdc3 { + regulator-always-on;
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 73
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +8
-0+ regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-dram"; + }; + + reg_aldo1: aldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + };
You can drop all the unused ones, unless you plan to include *this* file from another one and use those nodes/labels.
ChenYu
Quoted 74 lines
Quoted 72 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +72
-0+ + reg_aldo2: aldo2 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo3: aldo3 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo4: aldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pg"; + }; + + reg_bldo1: bldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo2: bldo2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pll"; + }; + + reg_bldo3: bldo3 { + /* 2.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo4: bldo4 { + /* 1.2v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo1: cldo1 { + /* 3.3v - audio codec - not yet implemented */ + }; + + reg_cldo2: cldo2 { + /* 3.3v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo3: cldo3 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-io"; + }; + + reg_cldo4: cldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-wifi"; + }; + + reg_boost: boost { + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <5200000>; + regulator-name = "boost"; + }; + + reg_cpusldo: cpusldo { + /* unused */ + }; + }; + }; + + rtc_ext: rtc@51 { + compatible = "nxp,pcf8563"; + reg = <0x51>; + }; +};
Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:58:07 +0800
Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Chen-Yu,
Quoted 71 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 61 lines
Quoted 57 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:39 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor. The key differences between the SP and the Plus is a lid switch and an RTC on the same i2c bus as the PMIC.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtsarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile +2
-1@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero2w.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero3.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-transpeed-8k618-t.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-2024.dtb -dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-h.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtbarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +26
-0@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +/* + * Copyright (C) 2024 Ryan Walklin <[email protected]>. + * Copyright (C) 2024 Chris Morgan <[email protected]>. + */ + +#include <dt-bindings/input/gpio-keys.h> +#include "sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dts" + +/ { + model = "Anbernic RG35XX SP"; + compatible = "anbernic,rg35xx-sp", "allwinner,sun50i-h700"; + + gpio-keys-lid { + compatible = "gpio-keys"; + + lid-switch { + label = "Lid Switch"; + gpios = <&pio 4 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* PE7 */ + linux,can-disable; + linux,code = <SW_LID>; + linux,input-type = <EV_SW>; + wakeup-event-action = <EV_ACT_DEASSERTED>; + wakeup-source; + }; + };Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 29
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +3
-0+}; + +/delete-node/ &r_rsb;I don't think deleting the *RSB* node is right here, if at all, I'd expect status="disabled", and then maybe deleting the axp717 node within? Or maybe factor the AXP node out into a separate file, and include it from the -2024.dts and from this one?
Quoted 1 line
Doesn't quite work because the unit address is different.
Ah, right, good point. It's a bit annoying because the node name itself is mostly irrelevant, but I see that this wouldn't pass validation.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Or move every board to I2C?
Doesn't this depend on the bootloader also running in RSB mode? My memory is a bit foggy on this, but IIRC we did a conversion on some other boards before?
In the SPL we use I2C only, mostly because we have an SPL capable I2C driver already.
In U-Boot proper we use whatever the DT says, that should work like in the kernel.
In TF-A we used to have one hardcoded transport per SoC, and that happens to be RSB everywhere at the moment, but I have a patch series [1] to determine this dynamically, via the DT. As it stands, that chooses the transport by looking at the PMIC (I2C for the AXP313, RSB for the AXP717 or AXP305), but I think it's fairly easy to check for the status property of both RSB and I2C, or look at the parent node of the AXP node to find the transport protocol to use.
I will sketch something up.
Chris has plans to auto-detect the exact Anbernic model in U-Boot, and switch to the right DT then automatically. IIUC I2C devices play a role in this, so switching to I2C for all Anbernic models would make this more viable.
It just leaves a bit of a bitter taste that we now model the DT after this particular requirement, and not after what the hardware looks like.
Cheers,
Andre.
[1] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22h616_pmics%22
Quoted 133 lines
Quoted 1 line
What do people think about this?
"disabled" in RSB node and deleting the axp717 node is probably the right thing to do.
Quoted 39 lines
Cheers,
AndreQuoted 36 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +36
-0+ +&r_i2c { + pinctrl-0 = <&r_i2c_pins>; + pinctrl-names = "default"; + status = "okay"; + + axp717: pmic@34 { + compatible = "x-powers,axp717"; + reg = <0x34>; + interrupt-controller; + #interrupt-cells = <1>; + interrupt-parent = <&nmi_intc>; + interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; + + vin1-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin2-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin3-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin4-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + + regulators { + reg_dcdc1: dcdc1 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <900000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-cpu"; + }; + + reg_dcdc2: dcdc2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-gpu-sys"; + }; + + reg_dcdc3: dcdc3 { + regulator-always-on;Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 73
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +8
-0+ regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-dram"; + }; + + reg_aldo1: aldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + };You can drop all the unused ones, unless you plan to include *this* file from another one and use those nodes/labels.
ChenYu
Quoted 74 lines
Quoted 72 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +72
-0+ + reg_aldo2: aldo2 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo3: aldo3 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo4: aldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pg"; + }; + + reg_bldo1: bldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo2: bldo2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pll"; + }; + + reg_bldo3: bldo3 { + /* 2.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo4: bldo4 { + /* 1.2v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo1: cldo1 { + /* 3.3v - audio codec - not yet implemented */ + }; + + reg_cldo2: cldo2 { + /* 3.3v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo3: cldo3 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-io"; + }; + + reg_cldo4: cldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-wifi"; + }; + + reg_boost: boost { + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <5200000>; + regulator-name = "boost"; + }; + + reg_cpusldo: cpusldo { + /* unused */ + }; + }; + }; + + rtc_ext: rtc@51 { + compatible = "nxp,pcf8563"; + reg = <0x51>; + }; +};
Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
Quoted 100 lines · Andre Przywara
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:58:07 +0800
Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> wrote:Hi Chen-Yu,
Quoted 71 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 61 lines
Quoted 57 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:39 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor. The key differences between the SP and the Plus is a lid switch and an RTC on the same i2c bus as the PMIC.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtsarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile +2
-1@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero2w.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero3.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-transpeed-8k618-t.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-2024.dtb -dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-h.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtbarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +26
-0@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +/* + * Copyright (C) 2024 Ryan Walklin <[email protected]>. + * Copyright (C) 2024 Chris Morgan <[email protected]>. + */ + +#include <dt-bindings/input/gpio-keys.h> +#include "sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dts" + +/ { + model = "Anbernic RG35XX SP"; + compatible = "anbernic,rg35xx-sp", "allwinner,sun50i-h700"; + + gpio-keys-lid { + compatible = "gpio-keys"; + + lid-switch { + label = "Lid Switch"; + gpios = <&pio 4 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* PE7 */ + linux,can-disable; + linux,code = <SW_LID>; + linux,input-type = <EV_SW>; + wakeup-event-action = <EV_ACT_DEASSERTED>; + wakeup-source; + }; + };Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 29
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +3
-0+}; + +/delete-node/ &r_rsb;I don't think deleting the *RSB* node is right here, if at all, I'd expect status="disabled", and then maybe deleting the axp717 node within? Or maybe factor the AXP node out into a separate file, and include it from the -2024.dts and from this one?
Quoted 1 line
Doesn't quite work because the unit address is different.
Ah, right, good point. It's a bit annoying because the node name itself is mostly irrelevant, but I see that this wouldn't pass validation.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Or move every board to I2C?
Doesn't this depend on the bootloader also running in RSB mode? My memory is a bit foggy on this, but IIRC we did a conversion on some other boards before?
In the SPL we use I2C only, mostly because we have an SPL capable I2C driver already.
In U-Boot proper we use whatever the DT says, that should work like in the kernel.
In TF-A we used to have one hardcoded transport per SoC, and that happens to be RSB everywhere at the moment, but I have a patch series [1] to determine this dynamically, via the DT. As it stands, that chooses the transport by looking at the PMIC (I2C for the AXP313, RSB for the AXP717 or AXP305), but I think it's fairly easy to check for the status property of both RSB and I2C, or look at the parent node of the AXP node to find the transport protocol to use.
I will sketch something up.
Quoted 6 lines
Chris has plans to auto-detect the exact Anbernic model in U-Boot, and switch to the right DT then automatically. IIUC I2C devices play a role in this, so switching to I2C for all Anbernic models would make this more viable.
It just leaves a bit of a bitter taste that we now model the DT after this particular requirement, and not after what the hardware looks like.
I honestly would rather simply have the Linux tree use i2c for all devices, to be honest. For at least the Anbernic RG35XXSP device as well as a device I haven't started yet (the RG28XX) there is an external rtc on the same i2c bus as the PMIC at 0x51. This device does not appear to be present on the other devices.
I'm thinking that with U-Boot I can use a single bootloader and load one of five device trees based on what happens when I check for this RTC at 0x51, when I attempt to communicate with mmc1 (wifi), and when I check GPIO PE11. I don't need to actually use the wifi in U-Boot, just find out if it's there.
This means basically:
GPIO PE11 - RG35XX-H
RTC present, wifi present - RG35XX-SP
RTC present, wifi missing - RG28XX
RTC missing, wifi missing - RG35XX-2024
RTC missing, wifi present - RG35XX-Plus
Regardless of this though, I will find a way to manage no matter what we decide here. But for the RG35XX-SP and RG28XX (not yet submitted) I want to run the PMIC off i2c so I can use the external RTC too.
Thank you,
Chris.
Quoted 140 lines
Cheers,
Andre.[1] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22h616_pmics%22
Quoted 133 lines
Quoted 1 line
What do people think about this?
"disabled" in RSB node and deleting the axp717 node is probably the right thing to do.
Quoted 39 lines
Cheers,
AndreQuoted 36 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +36
-0+ +&r_i2c { + pinctrl-0 = <&r_i2c_pins>; + pinctrl-names = "default"; + status = "okay"; + + axp717: pmic@34 { + compatible = "x-powers,axp717"; + reg = <0x34>; + interrupt-controller; + #interrupt-cells = <1>; + interrupt-parent = <&nmi_intc>; + interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; + + vin1-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin2-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin3-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin4-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + + regulators { + reg_dcdc1: dcdc1 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <900000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-cpu"; + }; + + reg_dcdc2: dcdc2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-gpu-sys"; + }; + + reg_dcdc3: dcdc3 { + regulator-always-on;Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 73
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +8
-0+ regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-dram"; + }; + + reg_aldo1: aldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + };You can drop all the unused ones, unless you plan to include *this* file from another one and use those nodes/labels.
ChenYu
Quoted 74 lines
Quoted 72 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +72
-0+ + reg_aldo2: aldo2 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo3: aldo3 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo4: aldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pg"; + }; + + reg_bldo1: bldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo2: bldo2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pll"; + }; + + reg_bldo3: bldo3 { + /* 2.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo4: bldo4 { + /* 1.2v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo1: cldo1 { + /* 3.3v - audio codec - not yet implemented */ + }; + + reg_cldo2: cldo2 { + /* 3.3v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo3: cldo3 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-io"; + }; + + reg_cldo4: cldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-wifi"; + }; + + reg_boost: boost { + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <5200000>; + regulator-name = "boost"; + }; + + reg_cpusldo: cpusldo { + /* unused */ + }; + }; + }; + + rtc_ext: rtc@51 { + compatible = "nxp,pcf8563"; + reg = <0x51>; + }; +};
Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 12:06:54 -0500
Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
Quoted 128 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 100 lines
On Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:58:07 +0800
Chen-Yu Tsai <[email protected]> wrote:Hi Chen-Yu,
Quoted 71 lines · Andre Przywara
Quoted 61 lines
Quoted 57 lines · On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 13:53:39 -0500 Chris Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
The Anbernic RG35XXSP is almost identical to the RG35XX-Plus, but in a clamshell form-factor. The key differences between the SP and the Plus is a lid switch and an RTC on the same i2c bus as the PMIC.
Signed-off-by Chris Morgan <[email protected]>--- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 147 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtsarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile +2
-1@@ -49,5 +49,6 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero2w.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-orangepi-zero3.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h618-transpeed-8k618-t.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-2024.dtb -dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-h.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dtb +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_SUNXI) += sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtbarch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +26
-0@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@ +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) +/* + * Copyright (C) 2024 Ryan Walklin <[email protected]>. + * Copyright (C) 2024 Chris Morgan <[email protected]>. + */ + +#include <dt-bindings/input/gpio-keys.h> +#include "sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-plus.dts" + +/ { + model = "Anbernic RG35XX SP"; + compatible = "anbernic,rg35xx-sp", "allwinner,sun50i-h700"; + + gpio-keys-lid { + compatible = "gpio-keys"; + + lid-switch { + label = "Lid Switch"; + gpios = <&pio 4 7 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>; /* PE7 */ + linux,can-disable; + linux,code = <SW_LID>; + linux,input-type = <EV_SW>; + wakeup-event-action = <EV_ACT_DEASSERTED>; + wakeup-source; + }; + };Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 29
Quoted 3 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +3
-0+}; + +/delete-node/ &r_rsb;I don't think deleting the *RSB* node is right here, if at all, I'd expect status="disabled", and then maybe deleting the axp717 node within? Or maybe factor the AXP node out into a separate file, and include it from the -2024.dts and from this one?
Quoted 1 line
Doesn't quite work because the unit address is different.
Ah, right, good point. It's a bit annoying because the node name itself is mostly irrelevant, but I see that this wouldn't pass validation.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Or move every board to I2C?
Doesn't this depend on the bootloader also running in RSB mode? My memory is a bit foggy on this, but IIRC we did a conversion on some other boards before?
In the SPL we use I2C only, mostly because we have an SPL capable I2C driver already.
In U-Boot proper we use whatever the DT says, that should work like in the kernel.
In TF-A we used to have one hardcoded transport per SoC, and that happens to be RSB everywhere at the moment, but I have a patch series [1] to determine this dynamically, via the DT. As it stands, that chooses the transport by looking at the PMIC (I2C for the AXP313, RSB for the AXP717 or AXP305), but I think it's fairly easy to check for the status property of both RSB and I2C, or look at the parent node of the AXP node to find the transport protocol to use.
I will sketch something up.Quoted 6 lines
Chris has plans to auto-detect the exact Anbernic model in U-Boot, and switch to the right DT then automatically. IIUC I2C devices play a role in this, so switching to I2C for all Anbernic models would make this more viable.
It just leaves a bit of a bitter taste that we now model the DT after this particular requirement, and not after what the hardware looks like.I honestly would rather simply have the Linux tree use i2c for all devices, to be honest. For at least the Anbernic RG35XXSP device as well as a device I haven't started yet (the RG28XX) there is an external rtc on the same i2c bus as the PMIC at
0x51. This device does not appear to be present on the other devices.I'm thinking that with U-Boot I can use a single bootloader and load one of five device trees based on what happens when I check for this RTC at
0x51, when I attempt to communicate with mmc1 (wifi), and when I check GPIO PE11. I don't need to actually use the wifi in U-Boot, just find out if it's there.This means basically:
GPIO PE11 - RG35XX-H
RTC present, wifi present - RG35XX-SP
RTC present, wifi missing - RG28XX
RTC missing, wifi missing - RG35XX-2024
RTC missing, wifi present - RG35XX-Plus
Quoted 3 lines
Regardless of this though, I will find a way to manage no matter what we decide here. But for the RG35XX-SP and RG28XX (not yet submitted) I want to run the PMIC off i2c so I can use the external RTC too.
Yes, if you have I2C devices connected to those pins, then we *need* to use I2C for the PMIC. We have the same situation for the Pine H64 board, check sun50i-h6-pine-h64.dts.
That's why the idea to switch the others, too.
Cheers,
Andre
Quoted 137 lines
Quoted 137 lines
[1] https://review.trustedfirmware.org/q/topic:%22h616_pmics%22
Quoted 133 lines
Quoted 1 line
What do people think about this?
"disabled" in RSB node and deleting the axp717 node is probably the right thing to do.
Quoted 39 lines
Cheers,
AndreQuoted 36 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +36
-0+ +&r_i2c { + pinctrl-0 = <&r_i2c_pins>; + pinctrl-names = "default"; + status = "okay"; + + axp717: pmic@34 { + compatible = "x-powers,axp717"; + reg = <0x34>; + interrupt-controller; + #interrupt-cells = <1>; + interrupt-parent = <&nmi_intc>; + interrupts = <0 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>; + + vin1-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin2-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin3-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + vin4-supply = <®_vcc5v>; + + regulators { + reg_dcdc1: dcdc1 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <900000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-cpu"; + }; + + reg_dcdc2: dcdc2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <940000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-gpu-sys"; + }; + + reg_dcdc3: dcdc3 { + regulator-always-on;Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts line 73
Quoted 8 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +8
-0+ regulator-min-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1100000>; + regulator-name = "vdd-dram"; + }; + + reg_aldo1: aldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + };You can drop all the unused ones, unless you plan to include *this* file from another one and use those nodes/labels.
ChenYu
Quoted 74 lines
Quoted 72 lines
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts new file +72
-0+ + reg_aldo2: aldo2 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo3: aldo3 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_aldo4: aldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pg"; + }; + + reg_bldo1: bldo1 { + /* 1.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo2: bldo2 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <1800000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-pll"; + }; + + reg_bldo3: bldo3 { + /* 2.8v - unused */ + }; + + reg_bldo4: bldo4 { + /* 1.2v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo1: cldo1 { + /* 3.3v - audio codec - not yet implemented */ + }; + + reg_cldo2: cldo2 { + /* 3.3v - unused */ + }; + + reg_cldo3: cldo3 { + regulator-always-on; + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-io"; + }; + + reg_cldo4: cldo4 { + regulator-min-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <3300000>; + regulator-name = "vcc-wifi"; + }; + + reg_boost: boost { + regulator-min-microvolt = <5000000>; + regulator-max-microvolt = <5200000>; + regulator-name = "boost"; + }; + + reg_cpusldo: cpusldo { + /* unused */ + }; + }; + }; + + rtc_ext: rtc@51 { + compatible = "nxp,pcf8563"; + reg = <0x51>; + }; +};
Rob Herring (Arm)
maintainerQuoted 11 lines · Chris Morgan
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add support for the Anbernic RG35XX-SP handheld gaming device. The Anbernic RG35XX-SP is a clamshell device, but hardware wise is very similar to the RG35XX-Plus. The RG35XX-SP has a lid-switch and an external RTC that necessitate a distinct device tree.
Chris Morgan (2):
dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SP
Quoted 11 lines
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 ++- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts--
2.34.1
My bot found new DTB warnings on the .dts files added or changed in this series.
Some warnings may be from an existing SoC .dtsi. Or perhaps the warnings are fixed by another series. Ultimately, it is up to the platform maintainer whether these warnings are acceptable or not. No need to reply unless the platform maintainer has comments.
If you already ran DT checks and didn't see these error(s), then make sure dt-schema is up to date:
pip3 install dtschema --upgrade
New warnings running 'make CHECK_DTBS=y allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtb' for [email protected]:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtb: pmic@34: regulators: 'boost' does not match any of the regexes: '^(([a-f])?ldo[0-9]|dcdc[0-7a-e]|ldo(_|-)io(0|1)|(dc1)?sw|rtc(_|-)ldo|cpusldo|drivevbus|dc5ldo)$', 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/x-powers,axp152.yaml#
Quoted 34 lines · Rob Herring (Arm)
Quoted 11 lines · Chris Morgan
From: Chris Morgan <[email protected]>
Add support for the Anbernic RG35XX-SP handheld gaming device. The Anbernic RG35XX-SP is a clamshell device, but hardware wise is very similar to the RG35XX-Plus. The RG35XX-SP has a lid-switch and an external RTC that necessitate a distinct device tree.
Chris Morgan (2):
dt-bindings: arm: sunxi: Add Anbernic RG35XXSP
arm64: dts: allwinner: h700: Add Anbernic RG35XX-SPQuoted 11 lines
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/sunxi.yaml | 24 ++- arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/Makefile | 3 +- .../sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts | 145 ++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 156 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dts--
2.34.1My bot found new DTB warnings on the .dts files added or changed in this series.
Some warnings may be from an existing SoC .dtsi. Or perhaps the warnings are fixed by another series. Ultimately, it is up to the platform maintainer whether these warnings are acceptable or not. No need to reply unless the platform maintainer has comments.
Quoted 4 lines
If you already ran DT checks and didn't see these error(s), then make sure dt-schema is up to date:
pip3 install dtschema --upgrade
Sorry, while this error probably occurs on other upstream trees for the moment, this commit should fix the error [1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-sunxi/[email protected]/
Thank you,
Chris.
Quoted 11 lines
New warnings running 'make CHECK_DTBS=y allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtb' for [email protected]:
arch/arm64/boot/dts/allwinner/sun50i-h700-anbernic-rg35xx-sp.dtb: pmic@34: regulators: 'boost' does not match any of the regexes: '^(([a-f])?ldo[0-9]|dcdc[0-7a-e]|ldo(_|-)io(0|1)|(dc1)?sw|rtc(_|-)ldo|cpusldo|drivevbus|dc5ldo)$', 'pinctrl-[0-9]+'
from schema $id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/mfd/x-powers,axp152.yaml#