[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151020165744.GE31130@pd.tnic>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:44 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Brijesh Singh <brijeshkumar.singh@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
robh+dt@...nel.org, pawel.moll@....com,
ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk, galak@...eaurora.org,
dougthompson@...ssion.com, mchehab@....samsung.com,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:44:46AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote:
> > This second property doesn't describe the hardware in any way. It should
> > be runtime-configurable and dpesn't belong in the DT.
> >
> > Regardless, the binding is wrong. This is in no way specific to AMD
> > Seattle, and per the code is actually used to imply the presence of a
> > Cortex-A57 feature. No reference to AMD Seattle belongs in the DT
> > binding (with the exception of the example, perhaps), nor in the driver.
> >
> > NAK while this pretends to be something that it isn't. At minimum, you
> > need to correctly describe the feature you are trying to add support
> > for.
> >
> I will remove AMD specific string in compatibility field and make the poll-delay-msec optional. Will also expose this as module parameter as you suggested below.
Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality?
If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple
vendors can use it?
How fast and how ugly can something like that become?
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
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