On 10/20/2015 12:41 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 07:36:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:26:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: >>>> Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality? >>> >>> The driver is entirely A57 generic. >>> >>>> If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple >>>> vendors can use it? >>> >>> Yes. >> >> Ok, cool. >> >>>> How fast and how ugly can something like that become? >>> >>> Not sure I follow. >> >> In the sense that some vendor might require just a little bit different >> handling or maybe wants to read some vendor-specific registers in >> addition to the architectural ones. >> >> Then we'll start adding vendor-specific hacks to that generic driver. >> And therefore the question how fast and how ugly such hacks would >> become. >> >> I guess we'll worry about that when we get there... >> >> So Brijesh, if you only need generic, architectural functionality, >> please call it arm64_edac or so and let's add it so that other arm64 >> vendors can use it too. > > Please note that this is specific to Cortex-A57, not ARMv8 or aarch64. > > It is an IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED feature as implemented by Cortex-A57, > which by definition is not implemented by other CPUs. It is not provided > by the ARM architecture. > > So this cannot be arm64_edac, but could potentially be cortex_a57_edac. > Yes code is generic to Cortex A57 and naming it cortex_a57_edac sounds good. Also I will follow your suggestion and remove DT binding and use MIDR. > 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
