lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 11/11] arm64: dts: Add Pensando Elba SoC support
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 11:54 AM Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > The Elba SoC is an embedded chip and not intended as a SBSA-compliant
> > general platform.
>
> This has nothing to do with following a standard. It has to do with
> following the intended use of the architecture. What you have here is
> the system architecture equivalent of trusting userspace to build the
> kernel page tables. It can work in limited cases. But would you want
> to deploy such construct at scale? Probably not.
>
> > In this implementation the ITS is used to provide message-based
> > interrupts for our (potentially large set) of hardware based
> > platform device instances. Virtualization is not a consideration.
> > We don't have a SMMU. Interrupt isolation isn't a practical
> > consideration for this product.
>
> Because you have foreseen all use cases for this HW ahead of time, and
> can already tell how SW is going to make use of it? Oh well...
>
> > Propose adding a comment to the dts.
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Elba SoC implemented a pre-ITS that happened to
> > + * be the same implementation as synquacer.
> > + */
>
> Which contains zero information. What you really want is: "We have
> decided to ignore the system architecture, good luck".
>
> M.
>
> --
> Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

On the contrary, the confusion of using the existing driver match
"socionext,synquacer-pre-its" is answered, why add new code.
Looks like we are deviating from the norm ;-). I'm not seeing how
this conversation is a productive use of time for a platform in
production.

Thanks,
Brad

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-08 21:04    [W:1.191 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site