On 22/04/16 02:50, jay.xu wrote:
> Hi Marc:
>
> On 2016年04月22日 05:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:24:09 +0200
>> Heiko Stübner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Am Donnerstag, 21. April 2016, 12:30:18 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:47:20 +0800
>>>>
>>>> "Huang, Tao" <huangtao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> Hi, Mark:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016年04月21日 18:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:58:12AM +0800, Jianqun Xu wrote:
>>>>>>> + cpu_l0: cpu@0 {
>>>>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>>>> + enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>>> + #cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>>> + clocks = <&cru ARMCLKL>;
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>> + cpu_b0: cpu@100 {
>>>>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a72", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0x100>;
>>>>>>> + enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>>> + #cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>>> + clocks = <&cru ARMCLKB>;
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> + arm-pmu {
>>>>>>> + compatible = "arm,armv8-pmuv3";
>>>>>>> + interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> This is wrong, and must go. There should be a separate node for the PMU
>>>>>> of each microarchitecture, with the appropriate compatible string to
>>>>>> represent that (see the juno dts).
>>>>> You are right. The first version we wrote is:
>>>>> pmu_a53 {
>>>>>
>>>>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
>>>>> interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>> interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_l0>,
>>>>>
>>>>> <&cpu_l1>,
>>>>> <&cpu_l2>,
>>>>> <&cpu_l3>;
>>>>>
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> pmu_a72 {
>>>>>
>>>>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu";
>>>>> interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>> interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_b0>,
>>>>>
>>>>> <&cpu_b1>;
>>>>>
>>>>> };
>>>>>
>>>>> but unfortunately, the arm pmu driver do not support PPI in two cluster
>>>>> well,
>>>>> so we have to replace with this implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case things are messier as the same PPI number is being used
>>>>>> across clusters. Marc (Cc'd) has been working on PPI partitions, which
>>>>>> should allow us to support that.
>>>>> Great! So what we can do right now? Wait this feature, and delete
>>>>> arm-pmu node?
>>>> I'd rather you have a look at the patches, test them with your HW,
>>>> and comment on what doesn't work!
>>> I would think we could do it in two tracks, testing and fixing but also letting
>>> the rk3399 devicetrees move forward without the pmu at first :-) .
>> Where would the fun be then? ;-)
> thanks for your advices, and I will try to test the percpu-partition
> patches.
>
> by the way, do you think it's better to let the dtsi be reviewed first,
> then the percpu-partition patches could be tested by more people ?
Up to you. As long as what is in the DT is correct and Acked by the DT
maintainers, I'm fine with it.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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
