[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b397a711-90e8-8c35-c49a-8d60b129c384@wdc.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 19:26:52 -0700
From: Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
"marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
"anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] dt-bindings: Correct RISC-V's timebase-frequency
On 9/17/18 7:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 02:54:54PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote:
>> From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
>>
>> Someone must have read the device tree specification incorrectly,
>> because we were putting timebase-frequency in the wrong place. This
>> corrects the issue, moving it from
>
> Last time this was brought up we actually had realy life DTs with
> the timebase-frequency under cpus and not the invidual cpu node.
>
Unfortunately, it still is. I hope SiFive can publish the updated
firmware with correct DT entries. I can patch BBL to fix these DT issues
until the firmware update if that's accepted.
> I think we need to just document both possibilities and live with
> them.
>
Yup. That was the intention. I will update the document/commit text to
reflect that.
Regards,
Atish
Powered by blists - more mailing lists