lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    Date
    SubjectRe: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4
    On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
    >
    > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
    > >
    > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> 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.
    >
    > >
    > > > 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.

    Short update: no, address-cells are not required by bindings. They are
    optional. In case of lack of them, the parent address-cells will be
    used so effectively this patch was changing it from 0 to 1. Anyway
    this was not expressed in commit msg so I'll drop it.

    Best regards,
    Krzysztof

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2019-09-12 11:37    [W:3.627 / U:0.040 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site