Hi Fabio,
On 8/13/26 1:44 PM, Fabio Estevam wrote:
From: Fabio Estevam <[email protected]>
The ROC-RK3399-PC has an MP8859 regulator on I2C7 at address 0x66,
while the ROC-RK3399-PC-PLUS does not. Probe for the regulator in SPL
and use the result to select the matching devicetree from the U-Boot
FIT. Fall back to the original board if the I2C bus cannot be probed.
Build both devicetrees from the existing roc-pc-rk3399_defconfig and
enable the XMC SPI NOR driver used by the Plus variant. Set fdtfile
from the selected U-Boot devicetree so the matching Linux devicetree
is used as well.
Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Quentin Schulz <[email protected]>
---
Changes since v4:
- Fixed mezzanine build error.
arch/arm/dts/rk3399-roc-pc-u-boot.dtsi | 8 ++++
board/firefly/roc-pc-rk3399/roc-pc-rk3399.c | 42 +++++++++++++++++++++
configs/roc-pc-rk3399_defconfig | 3 ++
doc/board/rockchip/rockchip.rst | 2 +-
4 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-roc-pc-u-boot.dtsi
b/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-roc-pc-u-boot.dtsi
index a85e9549c83..e7e4a2c8907 100644
--- a/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-roc-pc-u-boot.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/dts/rk3399-roc-pc-u-boot.dtsi
@@ -12,6 +12,14 @@
};
};
+&i2c7 {
+ bootph-pre-ram;
+};
+
+&i2c7_xfer {
+ bootph-pre-ram;
+};
+
&gpio4 {
bootph-pre-ram;
};
diff --git a/board/firefly/roc-pc-rk3399/roc-pc-rk3399.c
b/board/firefly/roc-pc-rk3399/roc-pc-rk3399.c
index 6937a27176f..8f54e526c19 100644
--- a/board/firefly/roc-pc-rk3399/roc-pc-rk3399.c
+++ b/board/firefly/roc-pc-rk3399/roc-pc-rk3399.c
@@ -5,14 +5,24 @@
#include <dm.h>
#include <env.h>
+#include <fdtdec.h>
+#include <i2c.h>
+#include <image.h>
#include <log.h>
#include <spl_gpio.h>
+#include <asm/global_data.h>
#include <asm/io.h>
#include <asm/arch-rockchip/cru.h>
#include <asm/arch-rockchip/gpio.h>
#include <asm/arch-rockchip/grf_rk3399.h>
+#define ROC_PC_MP8859_BUS "i2c@ff160000"
+#define ROC_PC_MP8859_ADDR 0x66
+#define ROC_PC_PLUS_FDTFILE "rockchip/rk3399-roc-pc-plus.dtb"
+
+DECLARE_GLOBAL_DATA_PTR;
+
#ifdef CONFIG_XPL_BUILD
#define PMUGRF_BASE 0xff320000
@@ -54,4 +64,36 @@ void led_setup(void)
spl_gpio_output(gpio0, GPIO(BANK_B, 5), 1);
}
+static bool is_roc_pc_plus(void)
+{
+ struct udevice *bus, *dev;
+
+ if (!(CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(I2C) && CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(DM_I2C)))
+ return false;
+
+ if (uclass_get_device_by_name(UCLASS_I2C, ROC_PC_MP8859_BUS, &bus))
+ return false;
+
+ return !dm_i2c_probe(bus, ROC_PC_MP8859_ADDR, 0, &dev);
Between v4 and v5, the exclamation point now inverts the result of
dm_i2c_probe and I believe this is incorrect.
dm_i2c_probe returns 0 if a chip was found, -ve otherwise. The
ROC-RK3399-PC-PLUS does NOT have this chip, therefore is_roc_pc_plus()
should return false (0) when the chip is NOT detected, meaning we should
NOT invert dm_i2c_probe(). Is this correct?
Cheers,
Quentin
