Hi Linus,
On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:52:49PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Some ARM1176JZF confusion in as separate thread...
>
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:23:48PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> >> + /* Primary DevChip GIC synthesized with the CPU */
> >> + intc_dc1176: interrupt-controller@10120000 {
> >> + compatible = "arm,arm1176jzf-gic";
> >
> > As far as I am aware, the JZF flags haven nothing to do with the GIC
> > implementation. I think they can be dropped from this string (following
> > the example of "arm,arm1176-pmu").
>
> FWIW I changed the string to "arm,arm1176-gic"
Ok.
> But this isn't about the CPU actually. It is the ARM1176JZF development
> chip. See:
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ddi0375a/DDI0375A_arm1176jzf_dev_chip_r0p0_trm.pdf
>
> I know it is confusingly named as a name of a SoC that has this
> CPU inside it but what can I do ... some guys named ARM came
> up with this.
Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion there.
> Should use the string "arm,arm1176jzf-devchip-gic"?
That sounds fine to me.
The document you've linked to says the GIC is derived from the MPCore
GIC, so I'd place "arm,arm11mp-gic" as a fallback entry in the
compatible list. Until we need to distinguish the two the driver
shouldn't need to be updated.
>
> >> + /* This GIC on the board is cascaded off the DevChip GIC */
> >> + intc_pb1176: interrupt-controller@10040000 {
> >> + compatible = "arm,arm1176jzf-gic";
> >
> > And this isn't part of the CPU, so that string doesn't look right. I'd
> > at least like to see an additional string earlier in the list
>
> This seems to be a follow-on to the above confusion.
Yup.
Thanks,
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
