| Message ID | 8e2e435ef67868cb98382b44c51ddb5c8d045d66.1631024536.git.jan.kiszka@siemens.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | arm64: dts: Update IOT2050 boards | expand |
On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > > This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced > devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream > kernels. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > --- > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { > compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; > model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; > > + aliases { > + mmc0 = &sdhci1; > + mmc1 = &sdhci0; > + }; Should we do this at SoC level?
On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >> >> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced >> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream >> kernels. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >> --- >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { >> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; >> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; >> >> + aliases { >> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; >> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; >> + }; > > > Should we do this at SoC level? > Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our downstream kernel/dts. Jan
On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > >> > >> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced > >> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream > >> kernels. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { > >> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; > >> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; > >> > >> + aliases { > >> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; > >> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; > >> + }; > > > > > > Should we do this at SoC level? > > > > Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, > this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our > downstream kernel/dts. > I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on partuuid.
On 07.09.21 17:27, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>> >>>> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced >>>> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream >>>> kernels. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { >>>> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; >>>> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; >>>> >>>> + aliases { >>>> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; >>>> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; >>>> + }; >>> >>> >>> Should we do this at SoC level? >>> >> >> Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, >> this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our >> downstream kernel/dts. >> > > I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on > partuuid. > Yeah, it's more about "dd if=emmc.img of=/dev/mmcblk1 - damn, the wrong one again." Let me know what you prefer, and I'll update my patch. Jan
On 17:30-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 07.09.21 17:27, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>> On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > >>>> > >>>> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced > >>>> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream > >>>> kernels. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ > >>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >>>> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 > >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >>>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { > >>>> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; > >>>> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; > >>>> > >>>> + aliases { > >>>> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; > >>>> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; > >>>> + }; > >>> > >>> > >>> Should we do this at SoC level? > >>> > >> > >> Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, > >> this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our > >> downstream kernel/dts. > >> > > > > I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on > > partuuid. > > > > Yeah, it's more about "dd if=emmc.img of=/dev/mmcblk1 - damn, the wrong > one again." > > Let me know what you prefer, and I'll update my patch. Lets do it at SoC level. I will follow it up with a patch for other K3 SoCs as well. Unless someone has a strong opinion on this approach - if so, speak up with reasons.
Hi Nishanth, On 07/09/21 9:05 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 17:30-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 07.09.21 17:27, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>> On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced >>>>>> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream >>>>>> kernels. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ >>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { >>>>>> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; >>>>>> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; >>>>>> >>>>>> + aliases { >>>>>> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; >>>>>> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; >>>>>> + }; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Should we do this at SoC level? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, >>>> this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our >>>> downstream kernel/dts. >>>> >>> >>> I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on >>> partuuid. >>> >> >> Yeah, it's more about "dd if=emmc.img of=/dev/mmcblk1 - damn, the wrong >> one again." >> >> Let me know what you prefer, and I'll update my patch. > > > Lets do it at SoC level. I will follow it up with a patch for other K3 > SoCs as well. > > > Unless someone has a strong opinion on this approach - if so, speak up > with reasons. > Making this change in SoC level for all K3 devices would force changes to be made in U-Boot too, for consistency. In U-Boot, a major change would be required in the environment variables to support this. As I don't see any functional advantage by making this change, I feel that this change would make things more confusing for users already using the K3 devices. At present, the ordering is consistent across all the K3 devices, I feel that keeping it the same way would be better. As for making changes only on IoT boards, if it is okay to have the ordering changed between U-Boot and kernel, I don't see any problem making this change in kernel alone. Thanks, Aswath
On 22:17-20210907, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > Hi Nishanth, > > On 07/09/21 9:05 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: > > On 17:30-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> On 07.09.21 17:27, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>> On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>> On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: > >>>>> On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced > >>>>>> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream > >>>>>> kernels. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >>>>>> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts > >>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { > >>>>>> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; > >>>>>> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> + aliases { > >>>>>> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; > >>>>>> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; > >>>>>> + }; > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Should we do this at SoC level? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, > >>>> this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our > >>>> downstream kernel/dts. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on > >>> partuuid. > >>> > >> > >> Yeah, it's more about "dd if=emmc.img of=/dev/mmcblk1 - damn, the wrong > >> one again." > >> > >> Let me know what you prefer, and I'll update my patch. > > > > > > Lets do it at SoC level. I will follow it up with a patch for other K3 > > SoCs as well. > > > > > > Unless someone has a strong opinion on this approach - if so, speak up > > with reasons. > > > > Making this change in SoC level for all K3 devices would force changes > to be made in U-Boot too, for consistency. In U-Boot, a major change > would be required in the environment variables to support this. As I > don't see any functional advantage by making this change, I feel that > this change would make things more confusing for users already using the > K3 devices. At present, the ordering is consistent across all the K3 > devices, I feel that keeping it the same way would be better. > > As for making changes only on IoT boards, if it is okay to have the > ordering changed between U-Boot and kernel, I don't see any problem > making this change in kernel alone. arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65.dtsi has no ordering. u-boot is supposed to copy from kernel the dtsi files as is. I think having mmc aliases in kernel is a good thing as we do regard kernel as the canonical dts source. If you are suggesting we flip things so that mmc0 is sdhci0 and mmc1 is sdhci1 - that might be a valid suggestion - Jan, do you see a problem in having consistency here (flip the aliases)?
Hi Nishanth, On 07/09/21 10:23 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 22:17-20210907, Aswath Govindraju wrote: >> Hi Nishanth, >> >> On 07/09/21 9:05 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>> On 17:30-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 07.09.21 17:27, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>> On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>>>> On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced >>>>>>>> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream >>>>>>>> kernels. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>>>> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 >>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { >>>>>>>> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; >>>>>>>> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + aliases { >>>>>>>> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; >>>>>>>> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; >>>>>>>> + }; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Should we do this at SoC level? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, >>>>>> this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our >>>>>> downstream kernel/dts. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on >>>>> partuuid. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yeah, it's more about "dd if=emmc.img of=/dev/mmcblk1 - damn, the wrong >>>> one again." >>>> >>>> Let me know what you prefer, and I'll update my patch. >>> >>> >>> Lets do it at SoC level. I will follow it up with a patch for other K3 >>> SoCs as well. >>> >>> >>> Unless someone has a strong opinion on this approach - if so, speak up >>> with reasons. >>> >> >> Making this change in SoC level for all K3 devices would force changes >> to be made in U-Boot too, for consistency. In U-Boot, a major change >> would be required in the environment variables to support this. As I >> don't see any functional advantage by making this change, I feel that >> this change would make things more confusing for users already using the >> K3 devices. At present, the ordering is consistent across all the K3 >> devices, I feel that keeping it the same way would be better. >> >> As for making changes only on IoT boards, if it is okay to have the >> ordering changed between U-Boot and kernel, I don't see any problem >> making this change in kernel alone. > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65.dtsi has no ordering. u-boot is supposed > to copy from kernel the dtsi files as is. I think having mmc aliases in > kernel is a good thing as we do regard kernel as the canonical dts > source. > Yes, you are correct. Aliases are not added for mmc in U-Boot too, but due to the ordering in the device tree, mmc0 is always sdhci0 and mmc1 is always sdhci1 in U-Boot. I agree that, in kernel as the probe order is not guaranteed, fixing the order would be better by adding aliases explicitly. > If you are suggesting we flip things so that mmc0 is sdhci0 and mmc1 is > sdhci1 - that might be a valid suggestion - Jan, do you see a problem > in having consistency here (flip the aliases)? > > Yes, I am suggesting a flip in the order and this order can be applied across all the K3 SoC's Thanks, Aswath
On 07.09.21 19:01, Aswath Govindraju wrote: > Hi Nishanth, > > On 07/09/21 10:23 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: >> On 22:17-20210907, Aswath Govindraju wrote: >>> Hi Nishanth, >>> >>> On 07/09/21 9:05 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>> On 17:30-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>> On 07.09.21 17:27, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>>> On 17:20-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>>> On 07.09.21 17:13, Nishanth Menon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16:22-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This ensures that the SD card will remain mmc0 across Basic and Advanced >>>>>>>>> devices, also avoiding surprises for users coming from the downstream >>>>>>>>> kernels. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> >>>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts | 5 +++++ >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>>>>> index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 >>>>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts >>>>>>>>> @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { >>>>>>>>> compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; >>>>>>>>> model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + aliases { >>>>>>>>> + mmc0 = &sdhci1; >>>>>>>>> + mmc1 = &sdhci0; >>>>>>>>> + }; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Should we do this at SoC level? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, I wouldn't mind - but that would also impact your EVMs. For us, >>>>>>> this is fine as we are coming from that ordering above with our >>>>>>> downstream kernel/dts. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it'd probably be a welcome change. overall we've standardized on >>>>>> partuuid. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yeah, it's more about "dd if=emmc.img of=/dev/mmcblk1 - damn, the wrong >>>>> one again." >>>>> >>>>> Let me know what you prefer, and I'll update my patch. >>>> >>>> >>>> Lets do it at SoC level. I will follow it up with a patch for other K3 >>>> SoCs as well. >>>> >>>> >>>> Unless someone has a strong opinion on this approach - if so, speak up >>>> with reasons. >>>> >>> >>> Making this change in SoC level for all K3 devices would force changes >>> to be made in U-Boot too, for consistency. In U-Boot, a major change >>> would be required in the environment variables to support this. As I >>> don't see any functional advantage by making this change, I feel that >>> this change would make things more confusing for users already using the >>> K3 devices. At present, the ordering is consistent across all the K3 >>> devices, I feel that keeping it the same way would be better. >>> >>> As for making changes only on IoT boards, if it is okay to have the >>> ordering changed between U-Boot and kernel, I don't see any problem >>> making this change in kernel alone. >> >> >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am65.dtsi has no ordering. u-boot is supposed >> to copy from kernel the dtsi files as is. I think having mmc aliases in >> kernel is a good thing as we do regard kernel as the canonical dts >> source. >> > > Yes, you are correct. Aliases are not added for mmc in U-Boot too, but > due to the ordering in the device tree, mmc0 is always sdhci0 and mmc1 > is always sdhci1 in U-Boot. I agree that, in kernel as the probe order > is not guaranteed, fixing the order would be better by adding aliases > explicitly. > We had mmc reordered for our devices in U-Boot already. That separate snippet would obviously be obsolete when sync'ing common reordering over. >> If you are suggesting we flip things so that mmc0 is sdhci0 and mmc1 is >> sdhci1 - that might be a valid suggestion - Jan, do you see a problem >> in having consistency here (flip the aliases)? >> >> > > Yes, I am suggesting a flip in the order and this order can be applied > across all the K3 SoC's > I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I've sent v2 already which moves aliasing to SoC level, and I would push that to U-Boot as well if acceptable. If not, we will keep this in our board DTs. Jan
On 22:28-20210907, Jan Kiszka wrote: [...] > > Yes, I am suggesting a flip in the order and this order can be applied > > across all the K3 SoC's > > > > I'm not sure what you are suggesting. I've sent v2 already which moves > aliasing to SoC level, and I would push that to U-Boot as well if > acceptable. If not, we will keep this in our board DTs. > responded in context of v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210908024442.jskmqqye432p4nmt@gatherer/
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts index ec9617c13cdb..d1d5278e0b94 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/ti/k3-am6548-iot2050-advanced.dts @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ / { compatible = "siemens,iot2050-advanced", "ti,am654"; model = "SIMATIC IOT2050 Advanced"; + aliases { + mmc0 = &sdhci1; + mmc1 = &sdhci0; + }; + memory@80000000 { device_type = "memory"; /* 2G RAM */