From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bp@alien8.de (Borislav Petkov) Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:44 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC In-Reply-To: <56266F7E.6030404@amd.com> References: <1445282597-18999-1-git-send-email-brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com> <20151019205236.GB453@leverpostej> <56266F7E.6030404@amd.com> Message-ID: <20151020165744.GE31130@pd.tnic> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:44:46AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: > > This second property doesn't describe the hardware in any way. It should > > be runtime-configurable and dpesn't belong in the DT. > > > > Regardless, the binding is wrong. This is in no way specific to AMD > > Seattle, and per the code is actually used to imply the presence of a > > Cortex-A57 feature. No reference to AMD Seattle belongs in the DT > > binding (with the exception of the example, perhaps), nor in the driver. > > > > NAK while this pretends to be something that it isn't. At minimum, you > > need to correctly describe the feature you are trying to add support > > for. > > > I will remove AMD specific string in compatibility field and make the poll-delay-msec optional. Will also expose this as module parameter as you suggested below. Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality? If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple vendors can use it? How fast and how ugly can something like that become? Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:44 +0200 Message-ID: <20151020165744.GE31130@pd.tnic> References: <1445282597-18999-1-git-send-email-brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com> <20151019205236.GB453@leverpostej> <56266F7E.6030404@amd.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56266F7E.6030404-5C7GfCeVMHo@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Brijesh Singh , Mark Rutland , Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-edac-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, dougthompson-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, mchehab-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:44:46AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: > > This second property doesn't describe the hardware in any way. It should > > be runtime-configurable and dpesn't belong in the DT. > > > > Regardless, the binding is wrong. This is in no way specific to AMD > > Seattle, and per the code is actually used to imply the presence of a > > Cortex-A57 feature. No reference to AMD Seattle belongs in the DT > > binding (with the exception of the example, perhaps), nor in the driver. > > > > NAK while this pretends to be something that it isn't. At minimum, you > > need to correctly describe the feature you are trying to add support > > for. > > > I will remove AMD specific string in compatibility field and make the poll-delay-msec optional. Will also expose this as module parameter as you suggested below. Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality? If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple vendors can use it? How fast and how ugly can something like that become? Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752598AbbJTQ5u (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:57:50 -0400 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:54554 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751501AbbJTQ5r (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2015 12:57:47 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:57:44 +0200 From: Borislav Petkov To: Brijesh Singh , Mark Rutland , Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, dougthompson@xmission.com, mchehab@osg.samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC Message-ID: <20151020165744.GE31130@pd.tnic> References: <1445282597-18999-1-git-send-email-brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com> <20151019205236.GB453@leverpostej> <56266F7E.6030404@amd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56266F7E.6030404@amd.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 11:44:46AM -0500, Brijesh Singh wrote: > > This second property doesn't describe the hardware in any way. It should > > be runtime-configurable and dpesn't belong in the DT. > > > > Regardless, the binding is wrong. This is in no way specific to AMD > > Seattle, and per the code is actually used to imply the presence of a > > Cortex-A57 feature. No reference to AMD Seattle belongs in the DT > > binding (with the exception of the example, perhaps), nor in the driver. > > > > NAK while this pretends to be something that it isn't. At minimum, you > > need to correctly describe the feature you are trying to add support > > for. > > > I will remove AMD specific string in compatibility field and make the poll-delay-msec optional. Will also expose this as module parameter as you suggested below. Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality? If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple vendors can use it? How fast and how ugly can something like that become? Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.