On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 04:31:56AM +0000, Kukjin Kim wrote: > Mark Rutland wrote: > > > Hi Mark, > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:51:17PM +0000, Kukjin Kim wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Reviewed-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-gh7.dtsi | 106 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-ssdk-gh7.dts | 26 ++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 132 insertions(+) > > > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-gh7.dtsi > > > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-ssdk-gh7.dts > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-gh7.dtsi > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-gh7.dtsi > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..b5e8488 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-gh7.dtsi > > > @@ -0,0 +1,106 @@ > > > +/* > > > + * SAMSUNG GH7 SoC device tree source > > > + * > > > + * Copyright (c) 2014 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > > > + * http://www.samsung.com > > > + * > > > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > > > + * published by the Free Software Foundation. > > > +*/ > > > + > > > +/memreserve/ 0x80000000 0x0C400000; > > > > Please have a comment as to what this memreserve is intended to protect. > > This is very large, and we don't want pointless memreserves. > > > Well, you mean I need to comment about each reserved memory area? Please have a comment about what each /memreserve/ is intended to protect. > We need the reserved memory for EL3 monitor, UEFI services, secure > interpreter, hypervisor and Scan-chain for debug...BTW isn't it depending on > each hardware platform and usage model? If it depends on each particular model then it doesn't belong in the shared dtsi, and each dts should have the /memreserve/ for that platform. Why would the hypervisor or secure OS memory ever be accessible to the kernel such that it would require a memreserve? That sounds fundamentally broken. I was under the impression that if using UEFI we can identify and reserve the UEFI services by walking to UEFI memory map. If we don't use them, they don't need to be protected. As such, I don't see why they need a memreserve for them. > Just note, I will change the reserve memory area and size. From at > 0xf8000000 and size is 128MB(0x8000000). Ok. > > What address does the kernel end up getting loaded at on this board? > > > We load the kernel image from at 0x80080000 after changing the reserve > memory area. Ok. > > > +/ { > > > + interrupt-parent = <&gic>; > > > + #address-cells = <2>; > > > + #size-cells = <2>; > > > + > > > + aliases { > > > + serial0 = "/amba/uart@12c00000"; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + cpus { > > > + #address-cells = <2>; > > > + #size-cells = <0>; > > > + > > > + cpu@000 { > > > + device_type = "cpu"; > > > + compatible = "arm,armv8"; > > > > The "arm,armv8" should be a fallback rather than the only entry. The > > precise core should be first (see arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm-storm.dtsi for > > an example). > > > Well, do I really need another name if GH7 has just 'ARMv8 core' exactly? Yes please. You presumably don't have "just 'ARMv8 core'", but rather a specific ARMv8 implementation. > > > + reg = <0x0 0x000>; > > > > Any reason for padding these to three hexadecimal digits (in both the > > reg and unit-address)? > > > Yes, I already commented on Olof's question before, other cores will be > added and it should be separated from this. Ok. > > > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > > > + cpu-release-addr = <0x0 0x8000fff8>; > > > + }; > > > + cpu@001 { > > > + device_type = "cpu"; > > > + compatible = "arm,armv8"; > > > + reg = <0x0 0x001>; > > > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > > > + cpu-release-addr = <0x0 0x8000fff8>; > > > + }; > > > + cpu@002 { > > > + device_type = "cpu"; > > > + compatible = "arm,armv8"; > > > + reg = <0x0 0x002>; > > > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > > > + cpu-release-addr = <0x0 0x8000fff8>; > > > + }; > > > + cpu@003 { > > > + device_type = "cpu"; > > > + compatible = "arm,armv8"; > > > + reg = <0x0 0x003>; > > > + enable-method = "spin-table"; > > > + cpu-release-addr = <0x0 0x8000fff8>; > > > + }; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + gic: interrupt-controller@1C000000 { > > > + compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic"; > > > > We should have a more specific compatible string early in the list here > > too. > > > Well, I think more specific compatible string is not required for gic, there > were discussion about using another compatible string for gic-v2. And > cortex-a15-gic should be fine at this moment and if another name is required > as per previous discussion, we will then. While it's probably ok to have "arm,cortex-a15-gic" in the compatible list, it would be good to also have a more specific string, so we can identify the GIC implementation precisely in future (in case we need to perform any workarounds, or there's some kind of optimisation we could perform for some implementations). > > > + #interrupt-cells = <3>; > > > + interrupt-controller; > > > + reg = <0x0 0x1C001000 0 0x1000>, /* GIC Dist */ > > > + <0x0 0x1C002000 0 0x1000>, /* GIC CPU */ > > > + <0x0 0x1C004000 0 0x2000>, /* GIC VCPU Control > */ > > > + <0x0 0x1C006000 0 0x2000>; /* GIC VCPU */ > > > + interrupts = <1 9 0xf04>; /* GIC Maintenence IRQ */ > > > + }; > > > + > > > + timer { > > > + compatible = "arm,armv8-timer"; > > > + interrupts = <1 13 0xff01>, /* Secure Phys IRQ */ > > > + <1 14 0xff01>, /* Non-secure Phys IRQ */ > > > + <1 11 0xff01>, /* Virt IRQ */ > > > + <1 10 0xff01>; /* Hyp IRQ */ > > > + }; > > > + > > > + pmu { > > > + compatible = "arm,armv8-pmuv3"; > > > > This is missing a specific compatible string. > > > I don't know why I need another specific compatible string here because I > thought the 'armv8-pmuv3' is enough. Each CPU microarchitecture has different PMU events and quirks. While the CPU PMU might be compatible with ARMv8's PMUv3, it will also have implementation-specific events, and may have quirks we need to work around in future. As with 32-bit, we'd expect these to be of the form "${implementor},${cpu}-pmu". > > > + interrupts = <0 294 0>, > > > + <0 295 0>, > > > + <0 296 0>, > > > + <0 297 0>, > > > + <0 298 0>, > > > + <0 299 0>, > > > + <0 300 0>, > > > + <0 301 0>; > > > + }; > > > > There are four CPUs described, yet eight interrupts here. There should > > be one per CPU. > > > Yes right. I added them here by mistake, the other four interrupts will be > used for other 4 cores will be added later though. Ok. > > > + amba { > > > + compatible = "arm,amba-bus"; > > > + #address-cells = <2>; > > > + #size-cells = <2>; > > > + ranges; > > > + > > > + serial@12c00000 { > > > + compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell"; > > > + reg = <0 0x12c00000 0 0x10000>; > > > + interrupts = <0 418 0>; > > > + }; > > > + > > > + serial@12c20000 { > > > + compatible = "arm,pl011", "arm,primecell"; > > > + reg = <0 0x12c20000 0 0x10000>; > > > + interrupts = <0 420 0>; > > > + }; > > > > These are both missing required clocks. > > > Yes right. So you'll add these? > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-ssdk-gh7.dts > > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-ssdk-gh7.dts > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000..47afbc4 > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/samsung-ssdk-gh7.dts > > > @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ > > > +/* > > > + * SAMSUNG SSDK-GH7 board device tree source > > > + * > > > + * Copyright (c) 2014 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > > > + * http://www.samsung.com > > > + * > > > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > > > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > > > + * published by the Free Software Foundation. > > > +*/ > > > + > > > +/dts-v1/; > > > +#include "samsung-gh7.dtsi" > > > + > > > +/ { > > > + model = "SAMSUNG SSDK-GH7 board based on GH7 SoC"; > > > > Is the "based on GH7 SoC" part necessary? Does the "SSDK-GH7" not give > > that away? > > > In this case, yes, SSDK-GH7 is enough but I though, in case of different > board adding what SoC is used on the board in that is useful. Anyway, OK. Looking at ePAPR, the recommended format is "manufacturer,model", and the string is intended to identify a particular implementation. It is not intended to give details about the implementation that can be derived from the name. We seem to have ignored the format (and to some degree purpose) of the model property so far, but I don't see any reason to fill it with unnecessary information. Thanks, Mark. -- 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
 |