From: Meador Inge <meador_inge@mentor.com>
To: Yoder Stuart-B08248 <B08248@freescale.com>
Cc: "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org"
<devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Meador Inge <meadori@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:35:41 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D55736D.2070606@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9F6FE96B71CF29479FF1CDC8046E15030C485D@039-SN1MPN1-002.039d.mgd.msft.net>
On 02/11/2011 08:58 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meador Inge [mailto:meadori@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM
>> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc-
>> dev@lists.ozlabs.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
>>
>> Apologies for the bad post. Bad day for email ... Please ignore the top
>> reply in my previous reply. The full reply is the below the quote.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Meador Inge<meador_inge@mentor.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/10/2011 02:42 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Meador Inge<meador_inge@mentor.com>
>>>> Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
>>>> To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
>>>> Cc: devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Hollis Blanchard<
>>>> hollis_blanchard@mentor.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This patch set provides a binding for Open PIC and implements support
>>>> for a new property, specified by that binding, called "pic-no-reset".
>>>> With "pic-no-reset" in place the "protected-sources" property is no
>>>> longer needed and its full implementation was removed.
>>>> "protected-sources" is still checked for, however, for legacy
>>>> purposes.
>>>>
>>>> For v3 of this patch the Open PIC binding was changed to be more
>>>> consistent with existing bindings, several DTS files were cleaned up,
>>>> "no-reset" was changed to "pic-no-reset", and a check to treat
>>>> "protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset" was added.
>>>>
>>
>> From the feedback I have received so far, the fundamental ideas in this
>> patch set are sane. However, the following issues still need agreement:
>>
>> 1. What should be the name of the no reset property?
>> "pic-no-reset" or "no-reset"?
>> 2. Should we just keep the existing protected sources implementation
>> in place?
>>
>> For (1), I prefer "no-reset".
>
> I also prefer plain "no-reset". The property is on a pic node so
> "pic" on the property seems redundant.
>
>> For (2), I still think that we can make "no-
>> reset" a synonym for "protected-sources" and that things will work out.
>>
>> Ben, you said that you would really like to leave the protected sources
>> implementation alone. Is the mechanism implemented in "PATCH
>> v3 3/4" [1] of having "protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset"
>> not suitable?
>
> I thought what Ben was getting at was that there is existing
> firmware that may provide a device tree with protected-sources,
> and thus we should continue supporting it for backwards
> compatibility.
Yup, Arnd pointed that out as well. That is why in "PATCH v3 3/4" I
added a check for "protected-sources". If it is found, then it is
treated exactly the same way as "no-reset", which should give equivalent
behavior.
For example, say we have 100 sources and the sources [1, 50] are the
only ones actually mentioned in the device tree. Also assume we set
"protected-sources = <51 52 53>".
Then, with the protected sources model sources [1, 50] and [54, 100]
would have there VECPRI/cpu binding initialization. Where as in the
enhanced "no-reset" model, only sources [1, 50] would have the
initialization done.
So unless there is some problem with not initializing the remaining
sources, e.g. sources [51, 100] in the previous example, then the
expanded "no-reset" should offer equivalent behavior to "protected-sources".
> So, I would say add "no-reset" as the preferred mechanism
> going forward, but keep "protected-sources" for backwards
> compatibility.
>
> Stuart
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
--
Meador Inge | meador_inge AT mentor.com
Mentor Embedded | http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Meador Inge <meador_inge-nmGgyN9QBj3QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
To: Yoder Stuart-B08248 <B08248-KZfg59tc24xl57MIdRCFDg@public.gmane.org>
Cc: "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org"
<devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org>,
"linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org"
<linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:35:41 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D55736D.2070606@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9F6FE96B71CF29479FF1CDC8046E15030C485D-TcFNo7jSaXPiTqIcKZ1S2K4g8xLGJsHaLnY5E4hWTkheoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org>
On 02/11/2011 08:58 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Meador Inge [mailto:meadori-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org]
>> Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM
>> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
>> Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org; linuxppc-
>> dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
>>
>> Apologies for the bad post. Bad day for email ... Please ignore the top
>> reply in my previous reply. The full reply is the below the quote.
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Meador Inge<meador_inge-nmGgyN9QBj3QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 02/10/2011 02:42 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Meador Inge<meador_inge-nmGgyN9QBj3QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>> Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
>>>> To: linuxppc-dev-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
>>>> Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Hollis Blanchard<
>>>> hollis_blanchard-nmGgyN9QBj3QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This patch set provides a binding for Open PIC and implements support
>>>> for a new property, specified by that binding, called "pic-no-reset".
>>>> With "pic-no-reset" in place the "protected-sources" property is no
>>>> longer needed and its full implementation was removed.
>>>> "protected-sources" is still checked for, however, for legacy
>>>> purposes.
>>>>
>>>> For v3 of this patch the Open PIC binding was changed to be more
>>>> consistent with existing bindings, several DTS files were cleaned up,
>>>> "no-reset" was changed to "pic-no-reset", and a check to treat
>>>> "protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset" was added.
>>>>
>>
>> From the feedback I have received so far, the fundamental ideas in this
>> patch set are sane. However, the following issues still need agreement:
>>
>> 1. What should be the name of the no reset property?
>> "pic-no-reset" or "no-reset"?
>> 2. Should we just keep the existing protected sources implementation
>> in place?
>>
>> For (1), I prefer "no-reset".
>
> I also prefer plain "no-reset". The property is on a pic node so
> "pic" on the property seems redundant.
>
>> For (2), I still think that we can make "no-
>> reset" a synonym for "protected-sources" and that things will work out.
>>
>> Ben, you said that you would really like to leave the protected sources
>> implementation alone. Is the mechanism implemented in "PATCH
>> v3 3/4" [1] of having "protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset"
>> not suitable?
>
> I thought what Ben was getting at was that there is existing
> firmware that may provide a device tree with protected-sources,
> and thus we should continue supporting it for backwards
> compatibility.
Yup, Arnd pointed that out as well. That is why in "PATCH v3 3/4" I
added a check for "protected-sources". If it is found, then it is
treated exactly the same way as "no-reset", which should give equivalent
behavior.
For example, say we have 100 sources and the sources [1, 50] are the
only ones actually mentioned in the device tree. Also assume we set
"protected-sources = <51 52 53>".
Then, with the protected sources model sources [1, 50] and [54, 100]
would have there VECPRI/cpu binding initialization. Where as in the
enhanced "no-reset" model, only sources [1, 50] would have the
initialization done.
So unless there is some problem with not initializing the remaining
sources, e.g. sources [51, 100] in the previous example, then the
expanded "no-reset" should offer equivalent behavior to "protected-sources".
> So, I would say add "no-reset" as the preferred mechanism
> going forward, but keep "protected-sources" for backwards
> compatibility.
>
> Stuart
>
> _______________________________________________
> devicetree-discuss mailing list
> devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
--
Meador Inge | meador_inge AT mentor.com
Mentor Embedded | http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-11 17:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-04 23:25 [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset" Meador Inge
2011-02-04 23:25 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-04 23:25 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] powerpc: Removing support for 'protected-sources' Meador Inge
2011-02-06 23:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-02-06 23:35 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-02-07 1:32 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-07 1:32 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-07 1:37 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-02-07 18:02 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-07 21:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-02-07 21:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2011-02-08 0:32 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-08 0:32 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-08 15:13 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248
2011-02-08 15:13 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248
2011-02-04 23:25 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] powerpc: document the Open PIC device tree binding Meador Inge
2011-02-04 23:25 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] powerpc: make MPIC honor the "pic-no-reset" device tree property Meador Inge
2011-02-04 23:25 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] powerpc: Replacing "protected-sources" with "pic-no-reset" in DTS files Meador Inge
2011-02-04 23:25 ` Meador Inge
[not found] ` <AANLkTinda9TX+Ng=kL-HHLOdqRnUZ6uitQKyZcRUHVco@mail.gmail.com>
2011-02-11 2:01 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset" Meador Inge
2011-02-11 2:01 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-11 3:26 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-11 3:26 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-11 14:58 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248
2011-02-11 14:58 ` Yoder Stuart-B08248
2011-02-11 17:35 ` Meador Inge [this message]
2011-02-11 17:35 ` Meador Inge
2011-02-11 18:41 ` Scott Wood
2011-02-11 18:41 ` Scott Wood
2011-02-11 18:59 ` Grant Likely
2011-02-11 18:59 ` Grant Likely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4D55736D.2070606@mentor.com \
--to=meador_inge@mentor.com \
--cc=B08248@freescale.com \
--cc=devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=meadori@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.