On 13/05/2020 19:21, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 11:30:04AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> The GIC DT binding only allows certain combinations of DT compatible
>> strings. The somewhat awkward "arm,cortex-a15-gic", "arm,cortex-a9-gic"
>> is not among those.
>>
>> Drop that combination of different "cortex" based strings used for the
>> models, and replace it with the more useful combination including
>> "arm,gic-400".
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8-gicv2.dtsi | 2 +-
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/rtsm_ve-aemv8a.dts | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8-gicv2.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8-gicv2.dtsi
>> index 15fe81738e94..f17e744163a5 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8-gicv2.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8-gicv2.dtsi
>> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
>>
>> / {
>> gic: interrupt-controller@2c001000 {
>> - compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic", "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>> + compatible = "arm,gic-400", "arm,cortex-a15-gic";
>
> Do we need to still retain "arm,cortex-a15-gic" ?
I'd rather would like to keep that. "arm,gic-400" was introduced only
later into Linux as a compatible string, so dropping this would break
older kernels. I don't see any difference between a9-gic and a15-gic in
term of kernel support, so a9-gic can surely go.
Cheers,
Andre
