On Thu, 12 Mar 2020 at 16:55, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 01:19:41PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 21:04, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > > diff --git a/hw/arm/fsl-imx6ul.c b/hw/arm/fsl-imx6ul.c
> > > @@ -456,6 +467,28 @@ static void fsl_imx6ul_realize(DeviceState *dev,
> > > Error **errp)
> > >
> > > FSL_IMX6UL_ENETn_TIMER_IRQ[i]));
> > > }
> > >
> > > + /* USB */
> > > + for (i = 0; i < FSL_IMX6UL_NUM_USBS; i++) {
> > > + static const int FSL_IMX6UL_USBn_IRQ[] = {
> > > + FSL_IMX6UL_USB2_IRQ,
> > > + FSL_IMX6UL_USB1_IRQ,
> > > + };
> >
> > Do we really want to wire up USB1 to USB2_IRQ and USB2 to USB1_IRQ ?
> > If so, a comment explaining that it is deliberate would be useful.
> >
> Yes. I think the definitions may be incorrect (or the Linux dts files are
> incorrect, but that seems unlikely). I tried the other way but then I get
> unhandled interrupt errors when trying to access a USB flash drive.
I guess we should check the datasheet and see if we just
have our #define names the wrong way around...
> > Side note: not used here, but in the header file we define:
> > FSL_IMX6UL_USB1_IRQ = 42,
> > FSL_IMX6UL_USB2_IRQ = 43,
> > FSL_IMX6UL_USB_PHY1_IRQ = 44,
> > FSL_IMX6UL_USB_PHY2_IRQ = 44,
> >
> > Is that last one correct, or a cut-n-paste error that should be "45" ?
> >
> From Linux devicetree files:
>
> usbphy1: usbphy@20c9000 {
> compatible = "fsl,imx6ul-usbphy", "fsl,imx23-usbphy";
> reg = <0x020c9000 0x1000>;
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 44 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> usbphy2: usbphy@20ca000 {
> compatible = "fsl,imx6ul-usbphy", "fsl,imx23-usbphy";
> reg = <0x020ca000 0x1000>;
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 45 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> usbotg1: usb@2184000 {
> compatible = "fsl,imx6ul-usb", "fsl,imx27-usb";
> reg = <0x02184000 0x200>;
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 43 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
> usbotg2: usb@2184200 {
> compatible = "fsl,imx6ul-usb", "fsl,imx27-usb";
> reg = <0x02184200 0x200>;
> interrupts = <GIC_SPI 42 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
>
> Should I maybe fix the definitions in a separate patch ?
Yes please.
thanks
-- PMM
