On 18/12/15 13:33, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Dirk,
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 18.12.2015 12:03, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 8:16 AM, Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Add device nodes for the L2 caches, and link the CPU node to its L2
cache node.
The L2 cache for the Cortex-A57 CPU cores is 2 MiB large (organized as
128 KiB x 16 ways).
The L2 cache for the Cortex-A53 CPU cores is 512 KiB large (organized as
32 KiB x 16 ways).
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Note: Geert: I picked your patch from
http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg466628.html
incoporated some review comments and rebased it against
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git/log/?h=next
renesas-next-20151211v2-v4.4-rc1
This is more or less what I have locally, except that I kept the latency
properties
Hmm, maybe I missed anything, but the only part reading the latency I can
find is
arch/arm/mm/cache-l2x0.c
[1] which isn't relevant for arm64?
No driver using a property in DT is not a reason not to put the property in DT.
The r8a7995 datasheet does contain the latency values to use.
While I agree with that, I would avoid having these values for 2 reasons:
1. Others might blindly copy and expect these setting to done in Linux
or any non-secure OS using DT which is clearly not possible on ARM64
2. Going by your argument, we usually have much more in datasheets
which are not all in DT, so strictly speaking that's not a reason to
have it here.
Again I am not against it, just an opinion.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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
