On 1/23/19 10:56 AM, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
On 1/22/19 11:48 AM, thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Add the OCRAM ECC node following the Arria10 format.
Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2 No changes
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi | 7 +++++++
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
index 8253a1a9e985..a625dc472b91 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
@@ -494,6 +494,13 @@
interrupts = <16 4>, <48 4>;
};
+ ocram-ecc@ff8cc000 {
+ compatible = "altr,socfpga-a10-ocram-ecc";
Are you absolutely sure there are no differences in the Stratix10 versus
A10? I wonder if it would be safer to have a platform specific binding
for Stratix10 rather than re-using A10. It would prevent from having to
change bindings later.
Dinh
They are the same functionally. However, you bring up a good point.
There are differences related to the underlying architecture - 32bit vs
64bit.
I will respin this series (except for the first fixup patch) with new
bindings for S10.
Thanks,
Thor
