On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 06:05:05PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 01/16, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:38:40AM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > On 01/15, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ah sorry, I forgot to put the compatible property here like in
> > > > the dts change. I'll do that in the next revision. Yes we need a
> > > > compatible property here to match the platform driver.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is the replacement patch
> > >
> > > -----8<------
> > > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: [PATCH v9] devicetree: bindings: Document Krait CPU/L1 EDAC
> > >
> > > The Krait CPU/L1 error reporting device is made up a per-CPU
> > > interrupt. While we're here, document the next-level-cache
> > > property that's used by the Krait EDAC driver.
> > >
> > > Cc: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: <devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> > > index 91304353eea4..03a529e791c4 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> > > @@ -62,6 +62,20 @@ nodes to be present and contain the properties described below.
> > > Value type: <u32>
> > > Definition: must be set to 0
> > >
> > > + - compatible
> > > + Usage: optional
> > > + Value type: <string>
> > > + Definition: should be one of the compatible strings listed
> > > + in the cpu node compatible property. This property
> > > + shall only be present if all the cpu nodes have the
> > > + same compatible property.
> >
> > Do we really want to do that ? I am not sure. A cpus node is supposed to
> > be a container node, we should not define this binding just because we
> > know the kernel creates a platform device for it then.
>
> This is just copying more of the ePAPR spec into this document.
> It just so happens that having a compatible field here allows a
> platform device to be created. I don't see why that's a problem.
I do not see why you cannot define a node like pmu or arch-timer and stick
a compatible property in there. cpus node does not represent a device, and
must not be created as a platform device, that's my opinion.
What would you do for big.LITTLE systems ? We are going to create two
cpus node because we need two platform devices ? I really think there
must be a better way to implement this, but I will let DT maintainers
make a decision.
> > interrupts is a cpu node property and I think it should be kept as such.
> >
> > I know it will be duplicated and I know you can't rely on a platform
> > device for probing (since if I am not mistaken, removing a compatible
> > string from cpus prevents its platform device creation), but that's an issue
> > related to how the kernel works, you should not define DT bindings to solve
> > that IMHO.
>
> The interrupts property is also common for all cpus so it seems
> fine to collapse the value down into a PPI specifier indicating
> that all CPUs get the interrupt, similar to how we compress the
> information about the compatible string.
I think it is nicer to create a device node (as I said, like a pmu or an
arch-timer) and define interrupts there along with a proper compatible
property. This would serve the same purpose without adding properties in
the cpus node.
cpu-edac {
compatible = "qcom,cpu-edac";
interrupts = <...>;
};
Thanks,
Lorenzo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
