Hi Geert,
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 10:58:04AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Simon, Magnus,
>
> This patch series add L1 and L2 cache descriptions to DT for r8a7740 and
> sh73a0, and migrates the shmobile DT-based generic r8a7740 and
> armadillo legacy platforms from calling l2x0_of_init() to the generic
> l2c OF initialization.
>
> Note that the conversion to the generic l2c OF initialization is not
> done yet for sh73a0, as this initializes the L2 cache earlier, breaking
> the (fragile) sh73a0 secondary CPU bringup code.
>
> Also note that this conversion should be done on r8a7778, and r8a7779,
> too.
>
> Changes compared to v3 ("[PATCH v3 0/6] ARM: l2c / shmobile: r8a7740 : Shared
> Override",
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-May/340636.html):
> - "l2c: Add support for the "arm,shared-override" property" was split
> off into an independent patch, and is now queued for v4.3 in
> arm/for-next,
> - Dropped armadillo legacy migration, as it no longer exists,
> - Added sh73a0 L1 and L2 DT cache description.
>
> Changes compared to v2 ("[PATCH v2 0/5] ARM: shmobile: r8a7740/armadillo:
> Migrate to generic l2c OF",
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg68176.html):
> - Add DT support for Shared Override,
> - Setting Shared Override is done only if CMA is not available (as
> Russell claims it's not needed if CMA is available),
> - Use 0/~0 in machine_desc.l2c_aux_{val,mask}, as DT now supports
> "arm,shared-override".
>
> Changes compared to v1:
> - Fix interrupt reference in DT,
> - Describe L2 better in DT,
> - Keep only {,~}L2C_AUX_CTRL_SHARED_OVERRIDE in
> machine_desc.l2c_aux_{val,mask}, as there's no DT property for
> this.
> - Add L1 cache to DT.
>
> Dependencies:
> - This series applies to renesas-devel-20150805-v4.2-rc5,
> - Patch 2 depends on patch 1,
> - Patch 4 depends on patch 2,
> - Patch 5 depends on patch 1 and on "ARM: 8395/1: l2c: Add support for
> the "arm,shared-override" property" in arm/for-next,
> - Patch 6 depends on patch 5.
>
> Given C code patches depending on DT patches in the same branch are
> frowned upon, I think it would be best if patch 1 (and patch 3, if
> anyone thinks we may fix the secondary CPU bringup issue during the next
> 3 months) are queued for v4.3. The other patches can be queued for
> 2016^H^H^H^Hv4.4.
Sorry for surprising you with that merge-order requirement.
Unfortunately I am not comfortable with taking patch 1 for v4.3 because:
1. Its now very late in the cycle
2. There now seems to be some discussion around it.
I think I am happy to take the other patches for v4.4, now. But perhaps
I should wait for the discussion around patch 1 to conclude first?
--
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
