On 07/01/14 16:12, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 07 January 2014 15:55:45 Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 07/01/14 12:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 12:41:42 Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>> Hi Tushar, >>>> >>>> This has been discussed couple of times in past[1][2], and the opinion was not >>>> to have these in DT as they are more configuration data than the actual hardware >>>> description. >>> >>> How do you suggest we get rid of the magic constants in platform code then? >>> I definitely don't want to keep the current state, and having configuration >>> data in DT seems the lesser evil. >>> >> >> I agree, but since these are more L2CC configuration than hardware description, >> IMO chosen node is one option. However it's good to get opinion from DT guys. > > I think one of the discussions we had during the Edinburgh kernel summit resulted > in being more relaxed towards configuration data in device nodes. > Ok. >>> Are there some reasonable defaults that Linux could use independent of the >>> platform and of what the boot loader defaults to? >>> >> >> Most of these registers can't be programmed in Non-secure mode. So as mentioned >> already in previous discussions it is better to avoid these settings in kernel. >> It would be better if bootloader programs these settings even if Linux runs in >> secure mode for simplicity. > > Yes, that would be ideal, but I fear we have to live with the boot loaders that > are in existence already. Whether or not the registers can be programmed in > non-secure mode is certainly a piece of information that belongs into the DT > node, so we don't try to write them when we shouldn't. We could also have a But the main problem is that there is no way to detect the current mode (i.e. secure or non-secure). So it won't be of any help even if we can get these information from DT. It's better to assume Linux runs in non-secure mode and avoid using any registers with secure only access. Any attempt to such restricted access in non-secure mode results in error. > property that identifies whether the boot loader has in fact set up the cache > controller correctly or whether Linux has to do it. There should be no > argument about this being out of scope, since it describes a platform property > (presence of a sane boot loader) rather than the actual configuration. > > If we decide to have such properties and we boot on a system where we can > and should change the settings, is there a way for Linux to know what the > settings are supposed to be other than reading them from a DT file or > from a per-platform default? > Yes I understand, but for above mentioned reason it's difficult. 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
