On 11.12.2015 13:38, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 11-12-15, 13:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> We had such configuration before (before df09df6f9ac3). I don't see any
>> benefit in what you described. Where is the "thing" to be fixed? It is
>> mixed up. The contiguous ordering is easier to read and more natural.
>
> This is what you are doing today (keeping on one CPU per cluster to
> simplify it):
>
> cpu0: cpu@0 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
> reg = <0x0>;
> clock-frequency = <1800000000>;
> cci-control-port = <&cci_control1>;
> };
>
> cpu4: cpu@100 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
> reg = <0x100>;
> clock-frequency = <1000000000>;
> cci-control-port = <&cci_control0>;
> };
>
>
> Then you overwrite it with:
>
> &cpu0 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
> reg = <0x100>;
> clock-frequency = <1000000000>;
> cci-control-port = <&cci_control0>;
> };
>
> &cpu4 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
> reg = <0x0>;
> clock-frequency = <1800000000>;
> cci-control-port = <&cci_control1>;
> };
>
>
> Don't you think this isn't the right way of solving problems?
>
> The DT overwrite feature isn't there to do such kind of stuff, though
> it doesn't stop you from doing that.
This is quite ugly, indeed, and it is getting uglier :)... but it does
not violate the idea of DT to describe the hardware. Both hardware
descriptions - the 5420 and overridden - are entirely correct... because
the CPU ordering comes from booting sequence (actually code in IROM
decides according to pulled up GPIO gpg2-1).
> Either you should keep separate paths for both the SoCs,
I like that idea. That makes it much more readable. Thanks for feedback!
I will send a patch for that.
> or can solve
> it the way I suggested earlier.
>
> This came up because in the current series you are doing this:
>
> cpu0: cpu@0 {
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
> operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>;
> };
>
> cpu4: cpu@100 {
> device_type = "cpu";
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
> operating-points-v2 = <&cpu1_opp_table>;
> };
>
>
> Then you overwrite it with:
>
> &cpu0 {
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a7";
> operating-points-v2 = <&cpu1_opp_table>;
> };
>
> &cpu4 {
> compatible = "arm,cortex-a15";
> operating-points-v2 = <&cpu0_opp_table>;
> };
Yes, it is getting uglier with each change...
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
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
