On 16.02.2016 10:43, Sudeep Holla wrote:
On 16/02/16 06:40, Dirk Behme wrote:
On 15.02.2016 21:38, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Add the missing "cache-unified" and "cache-level" properties to the
Cortex-A57 cache-controller node.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
---
v3:
- Remaining part of "[PATCH v2 6/6] arm64: renesas: r8a7795: Add L2
cache-controller nodes", after dropping the "arm,data-latency" and
"arm,tag-latency" properties.
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi | 2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi
index b5e46e4ff72ad003..c07f4e83b988ba42 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795.dtsi
@@ -68,6 +68,8 @@
L2_CA57: cache-controller@0 {
compatible = "cache";
+ cache-unified;
+ cache-level = <2>;
As this is completely unused on ARMv8 I don't think that we want to have
these unused entries in the DT.
Sudeep: What do you think?
I am fine with that, I don't see any issue having them as they are
static values and highly unlikely to change and hence no threat to
backward compatibility.
The main concern I had with latency values is that it's currently not
used anywhere but if we decide to use say in secure software, having the
untested/early values in DT might cause compatibility issues in future
as they were added much before the actual understanding of it's usage.
So I prefer to defer them until then.
Fine with me, thanks! :)
With this clarification:
Acked-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks again and best regards
Dirk
--
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
