[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150206192925.GG10324@leverpostej>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 19:29:25 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Thor Thayer <tthayer@...nsource.altera.com>
Cc: "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dougthompson@...ssion.com" <dougthompson@...ssion.com>,
"m.chehab@...sung.com" <m.chehab@...sung.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"dinguyen@...nsource.altera.com" <dinguyen@...nsource.altera.com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"tthayer.linux@...il.com" <tthayer.linux@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 0/5] Add Altera peripheral memories to EDAC framework
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 08:53:06PM +0000, Thor Thayer wrote:
> Hi Device Tree Maintainers,
Hi Thor,
Apologies for being silent for so long on this.
> On 01/08/2015 08:53 PM, tthayer@...nsource.altera.com wrote:
> > From: Thor Thayer <tthayer@...nsource.altera.com>
> >
> > This patch adds the L2 cache and OCRAM peripherals to the EDAC framework
> > using the EDAC device framework. The ECC is enabled early in the boot
> > process in the platform specific code.
> >
>
> The changes in this patch series revision were mainly to address device
> tree concerns. There were changes in other areas of the code to address
> these changes but I believe the other maintainers are waiting to see if
> these changes are accepted before they will review (they had approved
> the previous patch changes).
>
> How does the this patch series appear from a device tree perspective?
While this looks better than before (thank you for no longer treating
the PL310 registers as a syscon), I have a couple of quibbles with the
binding:
* It's not clear to me whether the L2 and OCRAM EDACs are fundamentally
different in interface, or whether they simply happen to be monitoring
different memories. The former would mean a common compatible string
for both EDAC block instances, and another property to determine
what the other end was.
* It relies on a single instance of OCRAM or L2 existing, rather than
describing the relationship with the particular memory explicitly. In
general it's better to be explicit -- this means it can more easily be
generalised to multiple OCRAMs as might occur in a later SoC (in
addition to the reasons laid out in the first point.
Thanks,
Mark.
--
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