(Sorry, this discussion stalled due to merge window + life events) On 01/17, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 07:26:17PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 01/16, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:05:05PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > On 01/16, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > Do we really want to do that ? I am not sure. A cpus node is supposed to > > > > > be a container node, we should not define this binding just because we > > > > > know the kernel creates a platform device for it then. > > > > > > > > This is just copying more of the ePAPR spec into this document. > > > > It just so happens that having a compatible field here allows a > > > > platform device to be created. I don't see why that's a problem. > > > > > > I do not see why you cannot define a node like pmu or arch-timer and stick > > > a compatible property in there. cpus node does not represent a device, and > > > must not be created as a platform device, that's my opinion. > > > > > > > I had what you're suggesting before in the original revision of > > this patch. Please take a look at the original patch series[1]. I > > suppose it could be tweaked slightly to still have a cache node > > for the L2 interrupt and the next-level-cache pointer from the > > CPUs. > > Ok, sorry, we are running around in circles here, basically you moved > the node to cpus according to reviews. I still think that treating cpus > as a device is not a great idea, even though I am in the same > position with C-states and probably will add C-state tables in the cpus > node. > > http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.power-management.general/41012 > > I just would like to see under cpus nodes and properties that apply to > all ARM systems, and avoid defining properties (eg interrupts) that > have different meanings for different ARM cores. > > The question related to why the kernel should create a platform device > out of cpus is still open. I really do not want to block your series > for these simple issues but we have to make a decision and stick to that, > I am fine either way if we have a plan. > Do you just want a backup plan in case we don't make a platform device out of the cpus node? I believe we can always add code somewhere to create a platform device at runtime if we detect the cpus node has a compatible string equal to "qcom,krait". We could probably change this driver's module_init() to scan the DT for such a compatible string and create the platform device right there. If we get more than one interrupt in the cpus node we can add interrupt-names and then have software look for interrupts by name instead of number. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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
