On 06/13/2018 01:28 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Marek, Hi, [...] >>>> But wait, since we control which machines this code runs on , can't we >>>> assure they have valid DTs ? This situation with invalid DT starts to >>>> look a bit hypothetical to me. >>> >>> That assumes you keep the list of machines to check, and don't want to fix the >>> issue automatically when detected (on any R-Car Gen2 or RZ/G1 platform, so >>> you still need to check for r8a779[0-4] and r8a774[23457]). >> >> Yes, I want to keep a list of machines to check, to be _sure_ some >> machine doesn't randomly blow up. > > Just checking for the presence of a "renesas,irqc" node should be sufficient. How so? Any other R-Car machine can have the irqc node too. That's fragile at best. > Using that node would also get rid of the hardcoded IRQC_BASE address. > Note that the code assumes IRQ2. If another IRQ is used, that won't harm > much though (as in: if it didn't blow up before, it won't blow up now). We could/should fix up the irqc detection though. >>> Anyway, as we care about booting old DTBs on new kernels (for a while), we >>> have a few more release cycles to bikeshed ;-) >> >> I was about to ask if this patch then makes any sense or not. > > Sure. Less hard-coding is always better. > Especially if it means we can make it work on more machines automatically :-) I prefer to be in control of that. -- Best regards, Marek Vasut
