Hi On 2019-09-12 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next. >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right: >> >>> 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node, >> The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but >> I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical >> addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621 >> that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just >> revert back to 64-bit addresses. > We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to > 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more > than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant. > At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards > (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek > chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert. I decided to go with 32bit version to make the fix smaller and easier to backport. If you select revert, make sure that it is applied after moving gpu node under /soc, otherwise the gpu node will have incorrect (32bit) reg property. Also add the gpu related patch as an (optional?) prerequisite for it. >> 2. Move GPU under /soc node, >> No problem >> >>> 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells. >> IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells >> property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the >> details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think >> the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch. > Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it. Ookay, I wasn't aware of that. Best regards -- Marek Szyprowski, PhD Samsung R&D Institute Poland
