On Thu, Apr 10 2014 at 11:37:12 am BST, Chanho Park <chanho61.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel- >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marc Zyngier >> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 7:05 PM >> To: Chanwoo Choi >> Cc: mark.rutland@xxxxxxx; linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; >> t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx; hyunhee.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx; sw0312.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx; >> linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; yj44.cho@xxxxxxxxxxx; inki.dae@xxxxxxxxxxx; >> kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx; kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx; Thomas Gleixner; >> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/27] irqchip: Declare cortex-a7's irqchip to >> initialize gic from dt >> >> On Thu, Apr 10 2014 at 10:28:24 am BST, Chanwoo Choi >> <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > This patch declare coretex-a7's irqchip to initialze gic from dt >> > with "arm,cortex-a7-gic" data. >> > >> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > --- >> > drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c | 1 + >> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> > >> > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c >> > index 4300b66..8e906e4 100644 >> > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c >> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c >> > @@ -1069,6 +1069,7 @@ gic_of_init(struct device_node *node, struct >> device_node *parent) >> > } >> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a15_gic, "arm,cortex-a15-gic", gic_of_init); >> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a9_gic, "arm,cortex-a9-gic", gic_of_init); >> > +IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a7_gic, "arm,cortex-a7-gic", gic_of_init); >> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init); >> > IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init); >> >> Frankly, this patch adds no value. Are we going to add >> "arm,cortex-a12-gic", "arm,cortex-a17-gic", "arm,cortex-a53-gic", >> "arm,cortex-a57-gic"? And that's just to mention the ARM Ltd cores... >> >> Instead, how about defining a generic "arm,gic" property, and mandate >> that new DT files are using that? We can always use a more precise >> compatible for quirks. > > I prefer it would be arm,gicv2 instead arm-gic. If you prefer, fine by me. Consider spelling it "arm,gic-v2", which seems to be the current convention for version numbers. > In case of GICv3 of arm64, it can be arm,gicv3. GICv3 and arm64 are independent of each other, and the binding has already been specified as "arm,gic-v3". 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
 |