[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170129225129.GK3133@localhost>
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:51:29 -0800
From: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Tsahee Zidenberg <tsahee@...apurnalabs.com>,
Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...e-electrons.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Beno?t Cousson <bcousson@...libre.com>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@....com>,
Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@...nel.org>,
Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@...il.com>,
Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>, arm@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,gic: Fix binding example for a
virt-capable GIC
On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:30:01PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:56:13PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > The joys of copy/paste: the example of a virtualization capable GIC
> > in the DT binding was wrong, and propagated to dozens of platforms.
> > By having a GICC region that is only 4kB (instead of 8kB), we
> > end-up not being able to access the GICC_DIR register which is on
> > the second page.
> >
> > Oh well. Let's fix the source of the crap before tackling individual
> > offenders. While we're at it, also fix the compatibility string to
> > mention "arm,gic-400", which is the name of the actual implementation
> > of the GICv2 spec.
>
> "While we're at it", code for should be in a separate patch. :) I
> wouldn't really care here, but you are not fixing anything...
>
> >
> > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>
> > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
> > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > index 5393e2a..a3d51ed 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > @@ -107,11 +107,11 @@ Required properties:
> > Example:
> >
> > interrupt-controller@...01000 {
> > - compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic";
> > + compatible = "arm,gic-400";
>
> Which one is correct really depends on the platform. The A15 can have an
> internal or external (gic-400) GIC. The former string is correct for an
> A15 with an internal GIC. One such platform is Calxeda midway.
>
> Arguably, we should not have arm,gic-400 by itself, but have an SoC
> specific compatible in case it was integrated in interesting ways.
Good point (and thanks for bringing it up).
Marc, based on this; want to back the above out so we can apply the rest for
now, while you battle on the compatible details? :)
-Olof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists