[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140409151932.GK6529@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 17:19:32 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
Cc: Punnaiah Choudary Kalluri <punnaiah.choudary.kalluri@...inx.com>,
Doug Thompson <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net>, kpc528@...il.com,
kalluripunnaiahchoudary@...il.com, punnaia@...inx.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] edac: add support for ARM PL310 L2 cache parity
On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 08:18:28AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> I don't think so, the PL310 is present on lots of ARM chips besides
> Xilinx. I don't know how many support parity as that is optional. In
> fact the highbank_l2_edac.c is for the PL310 as well, but the
> registers it uses is all custom logic added for ECC and there is no
> part of the PL310 h/w used by the driver.
Oh ok, so highbank_l2 and PL310 could theoretically be merged together
in one compilation unit, even if they don't really share code at all...
> If there is lots duplication, then that's a sign the framework needs
> to handle more of the boilerplate pieces. There could be a "simple"
> driver/library for devices which are no more than some registers, an
> interrupt handler and static information about the type of EDAC
> device.
Yeah, it's not that - I'm just getting worried that I'm receiving an
EDAC driver for each piece of silicon out there and would like to still
keep drivers/edac/ sane and be able to control that wild growth.
I'm just thinking out loud here, bear with me pls:
Frankly, having a single compilation unit contain similar silicon
functionality could be a good way to put a hold on the growth but the
disadvantage of this is fatter drivers. Which wouldn't matter all too
much but after a certain level of fat, they might need splitting.
And the highbank version is nothing but the big probe routine and a
small irq handler.
And the PL310 is similar but also with a poller.
I guess, if they don't share functionality at all, putting them together
might not be worth it. Hohummm.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists