[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190329202416.GI21152@zn.tnic>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 21:24:16 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Yash Shah <yash.shah@...ive.com>,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] edac: sifive: Add DT documentation for SiFive L2
cache Controller
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 02:41:05PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> DT dictates aligning with what the h/w looks like which has little to
> do with OS driver design.
Ok, then, where does this goal for doing a driver or compilation unit
per IP block come from?
Because everytime an ARM EDAC driver pops up, we are having the same
discussion.
> I never said you should change EDAC and I outlined how things should
> be handled if it is one driver.
Ok, we will add that to the EDAC driver design document we're currently
working on.
> DT and OS subsystems are independent things. I can't tell you how to
> design the subsystem and you can't dictate DT design (based on EDAC
> design).
I don't think I've ever intentionally or unintentionally dictated DT
design - all I've opposed to is having multiple EDAC drivers on ARM.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists