Hi Marc:
On 2016?04?22? 05:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:24:09 +0200
> Heiko St?bner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote:
>
>> Am Donnerstag, 21. April 2016, 12:30:18 schrieb Marc Zyngier:
>>> On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 18:47:20 +0800
>>>
>>> "Huang, Tao" <huangtao at rock-chips.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi, Mark:
>>>>
>>>> On 2016?04?21? 18:19, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 11:58:12AM +0800, Jianqun Xu wrote:
>>>>>> + cpu_l0: cpu at 0 {
>>>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0x0>;
>>>>>> + enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>> + #cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>> + clocks = <&cru ARMCLKL>;
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> + cpu_b0: cpu at 100 {
>>>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a72", "arm,armv8";
>>>>>> + reg = <0x0 0x100>;
>>>>>> + enable-method = "psci";
>>>>>> + #cooling-cells = <2>; /* min followed by max */
>>>>>> + clocks = <&cru ARMCLKB>;
>>>>>> + };
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + arm-pmu {
>>>>>> + compatible = "arm,armv8-pmuv3";
>>>>>> + interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>>>> + };
>>>>> This is wrong, and must go. There should be a separate node for the PMU
>>>>> of each microarchitecture, with the appropriate compatible string to
>>>>> represent that (see the juno dts).
>>>> You are right. The first version we wrote is:
>>>> pmu_a53 {
>>>>
>>>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu";
>>>> interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>> interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_l0>,
>>>>
>>>> <&cpu_l1>,
>>>> <&cpu_l2>,
>>>> <&cpu_l3>;
>>>>
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> pmu_a72 {
>>>>
>>>> compatible = "arm,cortex-a72-pmu";
>>>> interrupts = <GIC_PPI 7 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW>;
>>>> interrupt-affinity = <&cpu_b0>,
>>>>
>>>> <&cpu_b1>;
>>>>
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> but unfortunately, the arm pmu driver do not support PPI in two cluster
>>>> well,
>>>> so we have to replace with this implementation.
>>>>
>>>>> In this case things are messier as the same PPI number is being used
>>>>> across clusters. Marc (Cc'd) has been working on PPI partitions, which
>>>>> should allow us to support that.
>>>> Great! So what we can do right now? Wait this feature, and delete
>>>> arm-pmu node?
>>> I'd rather you have a look at the patches, test them with your HW,
>>> and comment on what doesn't work!
>> I would think we could do it in two tracks, testing and fixing but also letting
>> the rk3399 devicetrees move forward without the pmu at first :-) .
> Where would the fun be then? ;-)
thanks for your advices, and I will try to test the percpu-partition
patches.
by the way, do you think it's better to let the dtsi be reviewed first,
then the percpu-partition patches could be tested by more people ?
Jianqun
>
> M.
