On 03/11, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:08:56PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > Or should we be expressing the L1 cache as well? Something like:
> >
> > cpus {
> > #address-cells = <1>;
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> >
> > cpu@0 {
> > compatible = "qcom,krait";
> > device_type = "cpu";
> > reg = <0>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L1_0>;
> >
> > L1_0: l1-cache {
> > compatible = "arm,arch-cache";
> > interrupts = <1 14 0x304>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2>;
> > }
> > };
> >
> > cpu@1 {
> > compatible = "qcom,krait";
> > device_type = "cpu";
> > reg = <1>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L1_1>;
> >
> > L1_1: l1-cache {
> > compatible = "arm,arch-cache";
> > interrupts = <1 14 0x304>;
> > next-level-cache = <&L2>;
> > }
> > };
> >
> > L2: l2-cache {
> > compatible = "arm,arch-cache";
> > interrupts = <0 2 0x4>;
> > };
> > };
> >
> > (I'm also wondering if the 3rd cell of the interrupt binding
> > should only indicate the CPU that the interrupt property is
> > inside?)
>
> I am not aware of interrupts associated with vanilla :) "arm,arch-cache"
> objects, so I think that should be handled as a "qcom,krait" specific property
> (in the cpu node), or you should add another cache binding (compatible) for
> that.
>
> As you might have noticed (idle states thread) I am keen on defining objects
> for L1 caches explicitly, that patch still requires an ACK though (and
> you need to update it since you cannot add an interrupt property for all
> "arm,arch-cache" objects. I am sorry for being a pain, but I do not
> think that's correct from a HW description standpoint).
>
Ok. s/arm,arch-cache/qcom,arch-cache/ then. I imagine it is easy
enough to add some bits in the cache binding once it's accepted.
--
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
