On Fri, 2013-08-30 at 15:26 +0100, Jon Medhurst (Tixy) wrote:
> The Versatile Express V2P-CA15_A7 (aka TC2) has a CCI-400 which is
> needed to get Multi-Cluster Power Management (MCPM) working.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jon Medhurst <tixy@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> I was unsure if the devicetree list should be cc'd when making use of
> already agreed and documented bindings, so I erred on the side of
> caution and added it. Please say if this is unnecessary noise, or is
> expected for all device-tree changes, thanks.
MAINTAINERS say:
F: arch/*/boot/dts/
so you did right. The reality is that there is more focus on
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/* than on *.dts? and if the changes
are complainant they will be most likely sort-of-ignored...
> arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts
> index d2803be..12bd4ea 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/vexpress-v2p-ca15_a7.dts
> @@ -37,30 +37,35 @@
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
> reg = <0>;
> + cci-control-port = <&cci_control1>;
> };
>
> cpu1: cpu@1 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
> reg = <1>;
> + cci-control-port = <&cci_control1>;
> };
>
> cpu2: cpu@2 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
> reg = <0x100>;
> + cci-control-port = <&cci_control2>;
> };
>
> cpu3: cpu@3 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
> reg = <0x101>;
> + cci-control-port = <&cci_control2>;
> };
>
> cpu4: cpu@4 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
> reg = <0x102>;
> + cci-control-port = <&cci_control2>;
> };
> };
>
> @@ -104,6 +109,26 @@
> interrupts = <1 9 0xf04>;
> };
>
> + cci@2c090000 {
> + compatible = "arm,cci-400";
> + #address-cells = <1>;
> + #size-cells = <1>;
> + reg = <0 0x2c090000 0 0x1000>;
> + ranges = <0x0 0x0 0x2c090000 0x10000>;
> +
> + cci_control1: slave-if@4000 {
> + compatible = "arm,cci-400-ctrl-if";
> + interface-type = "ace";
> + reg = <0x4000 0x1000>;
> + };
> +
> + cci_control2: slave-if@5000 {
> + compatible = "arm,cci-400-ctrl-if";
> + interface-type = "ace";
> + reg = <0x5000 0x1000>;
> + };
> + };
> +
> memory-controller@7ffd0000 {
> compatible = "arm,pl354", "arm,primecell";
> reg = <0 0x7ffd0000 0 0x1000>;
With my VE-hat on, I can only say that if Lorenzo says it's fine, it's
fine :-) So:
Acked-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@xxxxxxx>
Now, it seems that we will really need it in 3.12. The problem is it's
quite late for this... Would arm-soc maintainers consider taking it in
on last-minute basis or should we wait to rc1 and post it then as a fix?
Thanks!
Pawel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
