On 12/02/14 11:29, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>> + gic: interrupt-controller@1C000000 {
>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic", "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>>>
>>> This looks incorrect -- you should at the very least have a more
>>> specific one than a15-gic? Marc?
>>
>> "arm,cortex-a9-gic" is definitely wrong (the A9 GIC doesn't have the
>> virt extensions). This binding matches what the A15 GIC has, so
>> "arm,cortex-a15-gic" is probably fine. Main issue here is that the GICv2
>> driver has no compatible string for anything else.
>>
>> Should we define something more generic (like "arm,gic-v2")? Or carry on
>> adding more compatible strings?
>
> It's been proposed repeatedly, and it probably makes sense to add the
> generic versions to the driver, and allow for more specific ones in the
> binding which DTs can use. That way we don't get an explosion of strings
> in the driver, but if we need to handle any particular GIC specially in
> future we can do so.
>
> I guess for Linux we'd want to add "arm,gic-v1" and "arm,gic-v2" to the
> driver. We could just add "arm,gic-v1" and expect it later in the
> compatible list if v2 is a strict superset of v1; I think it is but I'm
> not a GIC expert.
Sounds good to me.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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
