On 29/10/14 16:55, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:21 AM, James Hogan <james.hogan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 29/10/14 00:12, Andrew Bresticker wrote:
>>> - changed compatible string to include CPU version
>>
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +- compatible : Should be "mti,<cpu>-gic". Supported variants:
>>> + - "mti,interaptiv-gic"
>>
>>> +Required properties for timer sub-node:
>>> +- compatible : Should be "mti,<cpu>-gic-timer". Supported variants:
>>> + - "mti,interaptiv-gic-timer"
>>
>> Erm, I'm a bit confused...
>> Why do you include the core name in the compatible string?
>>
>> You seem to be suggesting that:
>>
>> 1) The GIC/timer drivers need to know what core they're running on.
>>
>> Is that really true?
>
> They don't now, but it's possible that a future CPU has a newer
> revision of the GIC which has some differences that need to be
> accounted for in the driver.
>
>> 2) It isn't possible to probe the core type.
>>
>> But the kernel already knows this, so what's wrong with using
>> current_cpu_type() like everything else that needs to know?
>>
>> 3) Every new core should require a new compatible string to be added
>> before the GIC will work. You don't even have a generic compatible
>> string that DT can specify after the core specific one as a fallback.
>
> Yes, adding a generic compatible string would be a good idea.
>
>> Please lets not do this unless it's actually necessary (which AFAICT it
>> really isn't).
>
> The point of this was to future-proof these bindings and I though that
> CPU type was the best way to indicate version in the compatible
> string. This is also how it's done for the ARM GIC and arch timers.
> Perhaps the best thing to do is to require both a core-specific
> ("mti,interaptiv-gic") and generic ("mti,gic") compatible string and
> just match on the generic one for now until there's a need to use the
> core-specific one. Thoughts?
FPGA boards like Malta are something else to consider (when it is
eventually converted to DT - Paul on CC knows more than me). You might
load an interAptiv, or a proAptiv, or a P5600 bitstream, and the gic
setup will be pretty much the same I think, since e.g. the address
depends on where it is convenient to put it in the address space of the
platform.
Any thoughts on the existence of current_cpu_type(), and the GIC
revision register? They pretty much make encoding of core in compatible
string redundant I think.
Cheers
James
