Hi Mark
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 4:45 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
Sorry, I missed your reply. Luckily Dinh pointed it out to me.
The SDRAM Controller binding is just 1 register but it includes
bitfields that describe the SDRAM configuration as well as some
bitfields for ECC. Ideally the ECC bitfields would be in a separate
register and could be included in the SDRAM EDAC block.
It is anticipated that other drivers and U-Boot may need to read the
SDRAM configuration which is why this register contains a "syscon"
designation.
The SDRAM EDAC block is a set of registers in the SDRAM Controller IP
register space that are ECC specific. I was thinking this should be a
separate binding since it encompasses 1 complete task but I see your
point about just having 1 binding.
I appreciate your help on figuring the proper way to handle this.
Sorry about reposting without addressing your comment.
Thanks,
Thor
--
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
