On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next. > > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right: > > > > > 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node, > > > > The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but > > I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical > > addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621 > > that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just > > revert back to 64-bit addresses. > > We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to > 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more > than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant. > At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards > (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek > chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert. > > > > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node, > > > > No problem > > > > > 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells. > > > > IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells > > property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the > > details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think > > the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch. > > Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it. Short update: no, address-cells are not required by bindings. They are optional. In case of lack of them, the parent address-cells will be used so effectively this patch was changing it from 0 to 1. Anyway this was not expressed in commit msg so I'll drop it. Best regards, Krzysztof
