On 04/24/2018 01:35 PM, thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Add support for SDRAM ECC on the Stratix10 platform to > the EDAC device driver. Although Stratix10 is very similar > to the Arria10, hypervisor support for Stratix10 SDRAM ECC > requires the use of SMC calls to a higher priority > exception level to handle some register reads/writes. > > Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/edac/Kconfig | 2 +- > drivers/edac/altera_edac.c | 459 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > drivers/edac/altera_edac.h | 114 +++++++++++ Does it make sense to have the support for this in separate files? > 3 files changed, 574 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/edac/Kconfig b/drivers/edac/Kconfig > index 3c4017007647..3c66b02b2473 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/edac/Kconfig > @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ config EDAC_THUNDERX > > config EDAC_ALTERA > bool "Altera SOCFPGA ECC" > - depends on EDAC=y && ARCH_SOCFPGA > + depends on EDAC=y && (ARCH_SOCFPGA || ARM64) Should the ARM64 dependency just be ARCH_STRATIX10? > help > Support for error detection and correction on the > Altera SOCs. This must be selected for SDRAM ECC. > diff --git a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > index 11d6419788c2..7ed885379719 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/altera_edac.c > @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > /* > + * Copyright (C) 2017-2018, Intel Corporation If you're updating the license header, would it make sense to convert to SPDX? Dinh -- 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
