Looping Marc, Benoit
On Wednesday 23 January 2013 04:06 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:05:18PM +0000, Kukjin Kim wrote:
Mark Rutland wrote:
+ devicetree-discuss, Grant Likely, Rob Herring and Tony Lindgren
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:41:27AM +0000, Kukjin Kim wrote:
From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Need to be changed requirements in the 'cpus' node for exynos5440
to specify all the per-cpu interrupts of arch timer.
The node(s) for the arch timer should not be in the cpus/cpu@N nodes.
Instead, there should be one node (in the root of the tree).
Well, I don't think so. As per my understanding, the local timers are
attached to every ARM cores (cpus) and it generates certain interrupt to the
GIC. So the correct representation for this in device tree is to include the
interrupts in the cpu nodes in dts file. Your comments refer to a
limitation in the Linux kernel implementation of the arch_timer and it
should not result in representing the hardware details incorrectly in the
dts file.
I disagree. The "correct representation" is whatever the devicetree binding
documentation describes. It does not describe placing timer nodes in the cpu
nodes.
This seems to be exact same topic what is getting discussed here [1]
Technically DT is suppose to represent how the hardware is rather than
how the bindings are done.
But as Marc pointed out, the approach taken currently is to not
duplicate the banked information. The thread [1] isn't concluded
yet but looks like we might want to avoid duplicating the information
considering, more of such duplication needs to follow. e.g gic i/f
Am still waiting on what Benoit has to say ?
Regards,
Santosh
[1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg85110.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
