From: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>

The FML13V01 board from DeepComputing incorporates a StarFive JH7110 SoC.
It is a mainboard designed for the Framework Laptop 13 Chassis, which has
(Framework) SKU FRANHQ0001.

The FML13V01 board features:
- StarFive JH7110 SoC
- LPDDR4 8GB
- eMMC 32GB or 128GB
- QSPI Flash
- MicroSD Slot
- PCIe-based Wi-Fi
- 4 USB-C Ports
 - Port 1: PD 3.0 (60W Max), USB 3.2 Gen 1, DP 1.4 (4K@30Hz/2.5K@60Hz)
 - Port 2: PD 3.0 (60W Max), USB 3.2 Gen 1
 - Port 3 & 4: USB 3.2 Gen 1

Create the DTS file for the DeepComputing FML13V01 board. Seven device
nodes have been verified functional and remain enabled: i2c2, i2c5, i2c6
qspi, mmc0, mmc1 and usb0.  All others remain disabled, or are disabled
by nodes in "jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts".

Signed-off-by: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
[elder@riscstar.com: revised the description, updated some nodes]
Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@riscstar.com>
Signed-off-by: Guodong Xu <guodong@riscstar.com>
---
v5: No change
v4: Changed model string to "DeepComputing FML13V01"
    Changed dts filename and Makefile accordingly to reflect the change
    Updated device nodes status, and verified functional
    Revised the commit message
v3: Updated the commit message
v2: Changed the model and copmatible strings
    Updated the commit message with board features

 arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile         |  1 +
 .../jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts         | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts

diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile
index 7a163a7d6ba3..b3bb12f78e7d 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile
+++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ DTC_FLAGS_jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-v1.3b := -@
 dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7100-beaglev-starlight.dtb
 dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7100-starfive-visionfive-v1.dtb
 
+dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dtb
 dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-milkv-mars.dtb
 dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-pine64-star64.dtb
 dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-v1.2a.dtb
diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..b515b7d04c37
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT
+/*
+ * Copyright (C) 2024 DeepComputing (HK) Limited
+ */
+
+/dts-v1/;
+#include "jh7110-common.dtsi"
+
+/ {
+	model = "DeepComputing FML13V01";
+	compatible = "deepcomputing,fml13v01", "starfive,jh7110";
+};
+
+&camss {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&csi2rx {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&gmac0 {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&i2c0 {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&pwm {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&pwmdac {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&spi0 {
+	status = "disabled";
+};
+
+&usb0 {
+	dr_mode = "host";
+};
-- 
2.34.1

On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
> From: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
> 
> The FML13V01 board from DeepComputing incorporates a StarFive JH7110 SoC.
> It is a mainboard designed for the Framework Laptop 13 Chassis, which has
> (Framework) SKU FRANHQ0001.
> 
> The FML13V01 board features:
> - StarFive JH7110 SoC
> - LPDDR4 8GB
> - eMMC 32GB or 128GB
> - QSPI Flash
> - MicroSD Slot
> - PCIe-based Wi-Fi
> - 4 USB-C Ports
>  - Port 1: PD 3.0 (60W Max), USB 3.2 Gen 1, DP 1.4 (4K@30Hz/2.5K@60Hz)
>  - Port 2: PD 3.0 (60W Max), USB 3.2 Gen 1
>  - Port 3 & 4: USB 3.2 Gen 1
> 
> Create the DTS file for the DeepComputing FML13V01 board. Seven device
> nodes have been verified functional and remain enabled: i2c2, i2c5, i2c6
> qspi, mmc0, mmc1 and usb0.  All others remain disabled, or are disabled
> by nodes in "jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts".
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
> [elder@riscstar.com: revised the description, updated some nodes]
> Signed-off-by: Alex Elder <elder@riscstar.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guodong Xu <guodong@riscstar.com>
> ---
> v5: No change
> v4: Changed model string to "DeepComputing FML13V01"
>     Changed dts filename and Makefile accordingly to reflect the change
>     Updated device nodes status, and verified functional
>     Revised the commit message
> v3: Updated the commit message
> v2: Changed the model and copmatible strings
>     Updated the commit message with board features
> 
>  arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile         |  1 +
>  .../jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts         | 44 +++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 45 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile
> index 7a163a7d6ba3..b3bb12f78e7d 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/Makefile
> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ DTC_FLAGS_jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-v1.3b := -@
>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7100-beaglev-starlight.dtb
>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7100-starfive-visionfive-v1.dtb
>  
> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dtb
>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-milkv-mars.dtb
>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-pine64-star64.dtb
>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_STARFIVE) += jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2-v1.2a.dtb
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..b515b7d04c37
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/starfive/jh7110-deepcomputing-fml13v01.dts
> @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 OR MIT
> +/*
> + * Copyright (C) 2024 DeepComputing (HK) Limited
> + */
> +
> +/dts-v1/;
> +#include "jh7110-common.dtsi"
> +
> +/ {
> +	model = "DeepComputing FML13V01";
> +	compatible = "deepcomputing,fml13v01", "starfive,jh7110";
> +};
> +
> +&camss {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&csi2rx {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&gmac0 {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&i2c0 {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&pwm {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&pwmdac {
> +	status = "disabled";
> +};
> +
> +&spi0 {
> +	status = "disabled";

If your board has to disable all these, then they should not have been
enabled in DTSI in the first place. Only blocks present and working in
the SoC (without amny external needs) should be enabled.

I suggest to fix that aspect first.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
> > From: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
> > +&camss {
> > +	status = "disabled";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&csi2rx {
> > +	status = "disabled";
> > +};

You can drop these two, I marked them disabled in the common file
earlier this week.
1
> > +
> > +&gmac0 {
> > +	status = "disabled";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&i2c0 {
> > +	status = "disabled";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&pwm {
> > +	status = "disabled";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&pwmdac {
> > +	status = "disabled";
> > +};
> > +
> > +&spi0 {
> > +	status = "disabled";
> 
> If your board has to disable all these, then they should not have been
> enabled in DTSI in the first place. Only blocks present and working in
> the SoC (without amny external needs) should be enabled.
> 
> I suggest to fix that aspect first.

Eh, I don't think I agree. Having 5 disables here is a lesser evil than
reproducing 90% of jh7110-common.dtsi or shunting a bunch of stuff
around. Emil?

On 21/10/2024 13:16, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
>>> From: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
>>> +&camss {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&csi2rx {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>> +};
> 
> You can drop these two, I marked them disabled in the common file
> earlier this week.
> 1
>>> +
>>> +&gmac0 {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&i2c0 {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&pwm {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&pwmdac {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> +&spi0 {
>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>
>> If your board has to disable all these, then they should not have been
>> enabled in DTSI in the first place. Only blocks present and working in
>> the SoC (without amny external needs) should be enabled.
>>
>> I suggest to fix that aspect first.
> 
> Eh, I don't think I agree. Having 5 disables here is a lesser evil than
> reproducing 90% of jh7110-common.dtsi or shunting a bunch of stuff
> around. Emil?

Why reproducing 90%? Only enable would be here, no? Or you want to say
the common DTSI has things which do not exist?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

On 10/21/24 7:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 21/10/2024 13:16, Conor Dooley wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
>>>> From: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
>>>> +&camss {
>>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +&csi2rx {
>>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>>> +};
>>
>> You can drop these two, I marked them disabled in the common file
>> earlier this week.
>> 1
>>>> +
>>>> +&gmac0 {
>>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +&i2c0 {
>>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +&pwm {
>>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +&pwmdac {
>>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>>> +};
>>>> +
>>>> +&spi0 {
>>>> +	status = "disabled";
>>>
>>> If your board has to disable all these, then they should not have been
>>> enabled in DTSI in the first place. Only blocks present and working in
>>> the SoC (without amny external needs) should be enabled.
>>>
>>> I suggest to fix that aspect first.
>>
>> Eh, I don't think I agree. Having 5 disables here is a lesser evil than
>> reproducing 90% of jh7110-common.dtsi or shunting a bunch of stuff
>> around. Emil?
> 
> Why reproducing 90%? Only enable would be here, no? Or you want to say
> the common DTSI has things which do not exist?

For what it's worth, I agree with Krzysztof.  In the (long) cover
page we pointed this out, and offered to do it in a followup patch.
But if requested we can do it now.

So in v6, a new patch would be inserted before the other three,
and it would:
- Remove the status = "okay" lines for those nodes that are not enabled
   in this new platform, in "jh7110-common.dtsi"
- Add nodes where appropriate in:
     jh7110-milkv-mars.dts
     jh7110-pine64-star64.dts
     jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi
   They'll look like this, to enable the ones disabled above, e.g.:
     &gmac0 {
         status = "okay";
     };

     &i2c0 {
         status = "okay";
     };

You guys should come to agreement, but I do think what Krzysztof says
is the right approach.  And unless convinced otherwise, this will be
what shows up in the next version of this series.

					-Alex

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>

On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:44:16AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> On 10/21/24 7:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 21/10/2024 13:16, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
> > > > > From: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
> > > > > +&camss {
> > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&csi2rx {
> > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > +};
> > > 
> > > You can drop these two, I marked them disabled in the common file
> > > earlier this week.
> > > 1
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&gmac0 {
> > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&i2c0 {
> > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&pwm {
> > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&pwmdac {
> > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +&spi0 {
> > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > 
> > > > If your board has to disable all these, then they should not have been
> > > > enabled in DTSI in the first place. Only blocks present and working in
> > > > the SoC (without amny external needs) should be enabled.
> > > > 
> > > > I suggest to fix that aspect first.
> > > 
> > > Eh, I don't think I agree. Having 5 disables here is a lesser evil than
> > > reproducing 90% of jh7110-common.dtsi or shunting a bunch of stuff
> > > around. Emil?
> > 
> > Why reproducing 90%? Only enable would be here, no? Or you want to say
> > the common DTSI has things which do not exist?
> 
> For what it's worth, I agree with Krzysztof.  In the (long) cover
> page we pointed this out, and offered to do it in a followup patch.
> But if requested we can do it now.
> 
> So in v6, a new patch would be inserted before the other three,
> and it would:
> - Remove the status = "okay" lines for those nodes that are not enabled
>   in this new platform, in "jh7110-common.dtsi"
> - Add nodes where appropriate in:
>     jh7110-milkv-mars.dts
>     jh7110-pine64-star64.dts
>     jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi
>   They'll look like this, to enable the ones disabled above, e.g.:
>     &gmac0 {
>         status = "okay";
>     };
> 
>     &i2c0 {
>         status = "okay";
>     };
> 
> You guys should come to agreement, but I do think what Krzysztof says
> is the right approach.  And unless convinced otherwise, this will be
> what shows up in the next version of this series.

Ultimately, it is up to Emil how he wants these laid out.

Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 08:44:16AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
> > On 10/21/24 7:47 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On 21/10/2024 13:16, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 09:17:59AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Oct 20, 2024 at 09:49:59PM +0800, Guodong Xu wrote:
> > > > > > From: Sandie Cao <sandie.cao@deepcomputing.io>
> > > > > > +&camss {
> > > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +&csi2rx {
> > > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > > +};
> > > >
> > > > You can drop these two, I marked them disabled in the common file
> > > > earlier this week.
> > > > 1
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +&gmac0 {
> > > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +&i2c0 {
> > > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +&pwm {
> > > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +&pwmdac {
> > > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > > > +};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +&spi0 {
> > > > > > +	status = "disabled";
> > > > >
> > > > > If your board has to disable all these, then they should not have been
> > > > > enabled in DTSI in the first place. Only blocks present and working in
> > > > > the SoC (without amny external needs) should be enabled.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suggest to fix that aspect first.
> > > >
> > > > Eh, I don't think I agree. Having 5 disables here is a lesser evil than
> > > > reproducing 90% of jh7110-common.dtsi or shunting a bunch of stuff
> > > > around. Emil?
> > >
> > > Why reproducing 90%? Only enable would be here, no? Or you want to say
> > > the common DTSI has things which do not exist?
> >
> > For what it's worth, I agree with Krzysztof.  In the (long) cover
> > page we pointed this out, and offered to do it in a followup patch.
> > But if requested we can do it now.
> >
> > So in v6, a new patch would be inserted before the other three,
> > and it would:
> > - Remove the status = "okay" lines for those nodes that are not enabled
> >   in this new platform, in "jh7110-common.dtsi"
> > - Add nodes where appropriate in:
> >     jh7110-milkv-mars.dts
> >     jh7110-pine64-star64.dts
> >     jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi
> >   They'll look like this, to enable the ones disabled above, e.g.:
> >     &gmac0 {
> >         status = "okay";
> >     };
> >
> >     &i2c0 {
> >         status = "okay";
> >     };
> >
> > You guys should come to agreement, but I do think what Krzysztof says
> > is the right approach.  And unless convinced otherwise, this will be
> > what shows up in the next version of this series.
>
> Ultimately, it is up to Emil how he wants these laid out.

Thanks, but I agree. Please begin with a patch moving the nodes that are no
longer common out of jh7110-common.dtsi and into the vf2, mars and pine64
consumers. You should probably do the same with the &usb0 node instead
of overriding the dr_mode property.

/Emil

On 10/23/24 11:49 AM, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
>> Ultimately, it is up to Emil how he wants these laid out.
> Thanks, but I agree. Please begin with a patch moving the nodes that are no
> longer common out of jh7110-common.dtsi and into the vf2, mars and pine64
> consumers. You should probably do the same with the &usb0 node instead
> of overriding the dr_mode property.
> 
> /Emil

Thenk you Emil, we will prepare the next version of the series
to do these things.

					-Alex