On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 10:15:26PM +0100, tthayer@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Thor Thayer <tthayer@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Add the Altera SDRAM EDAC bindings and device tree changes to the Altera SoC project.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <tthayer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> v2: Changes to SoC EDAC source code.
>
> v3: Fix typo in device tree documentation.
>
> v4,v5: No changes - bump version for consistency.
>
> v6: Assign ECC registers in SDRAM controller to EDAC
>
> v7: Fix SDRAM EDAC base address.
> ---
> .../bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdram-edac.txt | 15 +++++++++++++++
> arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi | 6 ++++++
> 2 files changed, 21 insertions(+)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdram-edac.txt
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdram-edac.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdram-edac.txt
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..d68e033
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/altera/socfpga-sdram-edac.txt
> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
> +Altera SOCFPGA SDRAM Error Detection & Correction [EDAC]
> +
> +Required properties:
> +- compatible : should contain "altr,sdram-edac";
> +- reg : should contain the ECC register range in sdram
> + controller (address and length).
> +- interrupts : Should contain the SDRAM ECC IRQ in the
> + appropriate format for the IRQ controller.
> +
> +Example:
> + sdramedac@ffc2502c {
> + compatible = "altr,sdram-edac";
> + reg = <0xffc2502c 0x28>;
> + interrupts = <0 39 4>;
> + };
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi
> index 310292e..da0785d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/socfpga.dtsi
> @@ -687,6 +687,12 @@
> reg = <0xffc25000 0x4>;
> };
>
> + sdramedac@ffc2502c {
> + compatible = "altr,sdram-edac";
> + reg = <0xffc2502c 0x28>;
> + interrupts = <0 39 4>;
> + };
I'm not sure I understand this. The ECC register existing within the
SDRAM controller, which we have a binding for. Why do we need a separate
binding for a subset of registers within an IP block?
Why can we not have a single binding for the entire SDRAM controlelr and
decompse that within Linux as it makes sense for the appropriate
subsystyems?
Leaking Linux design into bindings is a bad idea; it makes it harder to
change things.
Mark.
--
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
