openwrt/target/linux/ath79/dts/qca9531_dlink_dch-g020-a1.dts

169 lines
2.6 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later OR MIT
#include "qca953x.dtsi"
#include <dt-bindings/gpio/gpio.h>
#include <dt-bindings/input/input.h>
/ {
compatible = "dlink,dch-g020-a1", "qca,qca9531";
model = "D-Link DCH-G020 A1";
aliases {
led-boot = &led_power;
led-failsafe = &led_power;
led-running = &led_power;
led-upgrade = &led_power;
};
i2c {
compatible = "i2c-gpio";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
sda-gpios = <&gpio 0 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
scl-gpios = <&gpio 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_HIGH>;
gpio_ext: gpio_ext@38 {
compatible = "nxp,pca9554";
reg = <0x38 0x1>;
gpio-controller;
#gpio-cells = <2>;
};
rtc@30 {
compatible = "pericom,pt7c43390";
reg = <0x30 0x8>;
};
};
gpio-export {
compatible = "gpio-export";
usb_power {
ath79: remove model name from LED labels Currently, we request LED labels in OpenWrt to follow the scheme modelname:color:function However, specifying the modelname at the beginning is actually entirely useless for the devices we support in OpenWrt. On the contrary, having this part actually introduces inconvenience in several aspects: - We need to ensure/check consistency with the DTS compatible - We have various exceptions where not the model name is used, but the vendor name (like tp-link), which is hard to track and justify even for core-developers - Having model-based components will not allow to share identical LED definitions in DTSI files - The inconsistency in what's used for the model part complicates several scripts, e.g. board.d/01_leds or LED migrations from ar71xx where this was even more messy Apart from our needs, upstream has deprecated the label property entirely and introduced new properties to specify color and function properties separately. However, the implementation does not appear to be ready and probably won't become ready and/or match our requirements in the foreseeable future. However, the limitation of generic LEDs to color and function properties follows the same idea pointed out above. Generic LEDs will get names like "green:status" or "red:indicator" then, and if a "devicename" is prepended, it will be the one of an internal device, like "phy1:amber:status". With this patch, we move into the same direction, and just drop the boardname from the LED labels. This allows to consolidate a few definitions in DTSI files (will be much more on ramips), and to drop a few migrations compared to ar71xx that just changed the boardname. But mainly, it will liberate us from a completely useless subject to take care of for device support review and maintenance. To also drop the boardname from existing configurations, a simple migration routine is added unconditionally. Although this seems unfamiliar at first look, a quick check in kernel for the arm/arm64 dts files revealed that while 1033 lines have labels with three parts *:*:*, still 284 actually use a two-part labelling *:*, and thus is also acceptable and not even rare there. Signed-off-by: Adrian Schmutzler <freifunk@adrianschmutzler.de>
2020-09-26 15:31:17 +00:00
label = "power:usb";
gpio-export,name = "d-link:power:usb";
gpio-export,output = <0>;
gpios = <&gpio_ext 3 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
zwave_power {
ath79: remove model name from LED labels Currently, we request LED labels in OpenWrt to follow the scheme modelname:color:function However, specifying the modelname at the beginning is actually entirely useless for the devices we support in OpenWrt. On the contrary, having this part actually introduces inconvenience in several aspects: - We need to ensure/check consistency with the DTS compatible - We have various exceptions where not the model name is used, but the vendor name (like tp-link), which is hard to track and justify even for core-developers - Having model-based components will not allow to share identical LED definitions in DTSI files - The inconsistency in what's used for the model part complicates several scripts, e.g. board.d/01_leds or LED migrations from ar71xx where this was even more messy Apart from our needs, upstream has deprecated the label property entirely and introduced new properties to specify color and function properties separately. However, the implementation does not appear to be ready and probably won't become ready and/or match our requirements in the foreseeable future. However, the limitation of generic LEDs to color and function properties follows the same idea pointed out above. Generic LEDs will get names like "green:status" or "red:indicator" then, and if a "devicename" is prepended, it will be the one of an internal device, like "phy1:amber:status". With this patch, we move into the same direction, and just drop the boardname from the LED labels. This allows to consolidate a few definitions in DTSI files (will be much more on ramips), and to drop a few migrations compared to ar71xx that just changed the boardname. But mainly, it will liberate us from a completely useless subject to take care of for device support review and maintenance. To also drop the boardname from existing configurations, a simple migration routine is added unconditionally. Although this seems unfamiliar at first look, a quick check in kernel for the arm/arm64 dts files revealed that while 1033 lines have labels with three parts *:*:*, still 284 actually use a two-part labelling *:*, and thus is also acceptable and not even rare there. Signed-off-by: Adrian Schmutzler <freifunk@adrianschmutzler.de>
2020-09-26 15:31:17 +00:00
label = "power:zwave";
gpio-export,name = "d-link:power:zwave";
gpio-export,output = <0>;
gpios = <&gpio_ext 1 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
};
keys {
compatible = "gpio-keys";
wps {
label = "wps";
linux,code = <KEY_WPS_BUTTON>;
gpios = <&gpio 3 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
reset {
label = "reset";
linux,code = <KEY_RESTART>;
gpios = <&gpio 17 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
};
leds {
compatible = "gpio-leds";
led_power: power {
ath79: remove model name from LED labels Currently, we request LED labels in OpenWrt to follow the scheme modelname:color:function However, specifying the modelname at the beginning is actually entirely useless for the devices we support in OpenWrt. On the contrary, having this part actually introduces inconvenience in several aspects: - We need to ensure/check consistency with the DTS compatible - We have various exceptions where not the model name is used, but the vendor name (like tp-link), which is hard to track and justify even for core-developers - Having model-based components will not allow to share identical LED definitions in DTSI files - The inconsistency in what's used for the model part complicates several scripts, e.g. board.d/01_leds or LED migrations from ar71xx where this was even more messy Apart from our needs, upstream has deprecated the label property entirely and introduced new properties to specify color and function properties separately. However, the implementation does not appear to be ready and probably won't become ready and/or match our requirements in the foreseeable future. However, the limitation of generic LEDs to color and function properties follows the same idea pointed out above. Generic LEDs will get names like "green:status" or "red:indicator" then, and if a "devicename" is prepended, it will be the one of an internal device, like "phy1:amber:status". With this patch, we move into the same direction, and just drop the boardname from the LED labels. This allows to consolidate a few definitions in DTSI files (will be much more on ramips), and to drop a few migrations compared to ar71xx that just changed the boardname. But mainly, it will liberate us from a completely useless subject to take care of for device support review and maintenance. To also drop the boardname from existing configurations, a simple migration routine is added unconditionally. Although this seems unfamiliar at first look, a quick check in kernel for the arm/arm64 dts files revealed that while 1033 lines have labels with three parts *:*:*, still 284 actually use a two-part labelling *:*, and thus is also acceptable and not even rare there. Signed-off-by: Adrian Schmutzler <freifunk@adrianschmutzler.de>
2020-09-26 15:31:17 +00:00
label = "green:power";
gpios = <&gpio 13 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
status {
ath79: remove model name from LED labels Currently, we request LED labels in OpenWrt to follow the scheme modelname:color:function However, specifying the modelname at the beginning is actually entirely useless for the devices we support in OpenWrt. On the contrary, having this part actually introduces inconvenience in several aspects: - We need to ensure/check consistency with the DTS compatible - We have various exceptions where not the model name is used, but the vendor name (like tp-link), which is hard to track and justify even for core-developers - Having model-based components will not allow to share identical LED definitions in DTSI files - The inconsistency in what's used for the model part complicates several scripts, e.g. board.d/01_leds or LED migrations from ar71xx where this was even more messy Apart from our needs, upstream has deprecated the label property entirely and introduced new properties to specify color and function properties separately. However, the implementation does not appear to be ready and probably won't become ready and/or match our requirements in the foreseeable future. However, the limitation of generic LEDs to color and function properties follows the same idea pointed out above. Generic LEDs will get names like "green:status" or "red:indicator" then, and if a "devicename" is prepended, it will be the one of an internal device, like "phy1:amber:status". With this patch, we move into the same direction, and just drop the boardname from the LED labels. This allows to consolidate a few definitions in DTSI files (will be much more on ramips), and to drop a few migrations compared to ar71xx that just changed the boardname. But mainly, it will liberate us from a completely useless subject to take care of for device support review and maintenance. To also drop the boardname from existing configurations, a simple migration routine is added unconditionally. Although this seems unfamiliar at first look, a quick check in kernel for the arm/arm64 dts files revealed that while 1033 lines have labels with three parts *:*:*, still 284 actually use a two-part labelling *:*, and thus is also acceptable and not even rare there. Signed-off-by: Adrian Schmutzler <freifunk@adrianschmutzler.de>
2020-09-26 15:31:17 +00:00
label = "red:status";
gpios = <&gpio 14 GPIO_ACTIVE_LOW>;
};
};
};
&spi {
status = "okay";
flash@0 {
compatible = "jedec,spi-nor";
reg = <0>;
spi-max-frequency = <50000000>;
partitions {
compatible = "fixed-partitions";
#address-cells = <1>;
#size-cells = <1>;
partition@0 {
label = "u-boot";
reg = <0x0 0x10000>;
read-only;
};
art: partition@10000 {
label = "art";
reg = <0x10000 0x10000>;
read-only;
};
partition@20000 {
label = "mp";
reg = <0x20000 0x10000>;
read-only;
};
partition@30000 {
label = "config";
reg = <0x30000 0x10000>;
read-only;
};
partition@40000 {
label = "bootarg";
reg = <0x40000 0x10000>;
read-only;
};
partition@50000 {
label = "firmware";
reg = <0x50000 0xe70000>;
compatible = "denx,uimage";
};
partition@ec0000 {
label = "dlink";
reg = <0xec0000 0x140000>;
read-only;
};
};
};
};
&uart {
status = "okay";
};
&usb0 {
status = "okay";
};
&usb_phy {
status = "okay";
};
&eth0 {
status = "okay";
};
&wmac {
status = "okay";
mtd-cal-data = <&art 0x1000>;
};