[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:04:08 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 3:24 PM Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
No, but folks just extend 1 driver to mean 1 DT node because that's
easy and certainly the more common case.
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists