On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 04/26/2018 09:58 AM, Thor Thayer wrote: >> On 04/26/2018 09:43 AM, Thor Thayer wrote: >>> On 04/25/2018 09:16 PM, Dinh Nguyen wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 04/24/2018 01:35 PM, thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >>>>> From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> >>>>> Add the device tree bindings needed to support the Stratix10 >>>>> ECC Manager and SDRAM ECC to the existing bindings. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> --- >>>>> .../bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-eccmgr.txt | 47 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 1 file changed, 47 insertions(+) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git >>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-eccmgr.txt >>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-eccmgr.txt >>>>> index 4a1714f96bab..fe48ad293a24 100644 >>>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-eccmgr.txt >>>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-eccmgr.txt >>>>> @@ -231,3 +231,50 @@ Example: >>>>> <48 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>; >>>>> }; >>>>> }; >>>>> + >>>>> +Stratix10 SoCFPGA ECC Manager >>>>> +The Stratix10 SoC ECC Manager handles the IRQs for each peripheral >>>>> +in a shared register similar to the Arria10. However, ECC requires >>>>> +access to registers that can only be read in EL3 with SMC calls. >>>>> +Therefore the device tree is slightly different. >>>>> + >>>>> +Required Properties: >>>>> +- compatible : Should be "altr,socfpga-s10-ecc-manager" >>>> >>>> Altera technically doesn't exist anymore, should this be >>>> "intel,stratix10-ecc-manager"? >>>> >>> I was trying to be consistent with the older names but I agree with >>> your argument. I will change this. Thanks >>> >> After looking at the Stratix10 device tree, there are only "altr," in >> there. For instance the top node is: >> >> compatible = "altr,socfpga-stratix10"; >> >> and even the directory that the device tree is in is named "altera" >> >> so I'll stick with the existing "altr," designation to be consistent. >> > > That's fine and I don't have any strong inclination for 1 way or > another. But it's not quite true that there are only "altr" in the dts file. > > I did recently switch the clock manager to an intel designation. I > upstreamed the original stratix10 DTS file back in 2015, before Altera > was purchased by Intel. > > My only argument is that if you're adding new support for devices, it > should be an intel binding. I think I would make the switch when you change it at the SoC level (for a new SoC). IOW, if the top level compatible is using 'intel', then use that for the device bindings otherwise stick with 'altr' for that SoC. Rob -- 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
