All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Sudeep.Holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: cache-l2x0: Parse properties from DT for PL310 cache controller
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:55:45 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52CC2381.2090905@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4325123.pn10H18tk9@wuerfel>

On 07/01/14 12:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 12:41:42 Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Hi Tushar,
>>
>> This has been discussed couple of times in past[1][2], and the opinion was not
>> to have these in DT as they are more configuration data than the actual hardware
>> description.
> 
> How do you suggest we get rid of the magic constants in platform code then?
> I definitely don't want to keep the current state, and having configuration
> data in DT seems the lesser evil.
> 

I agree, but since these are more L2CC configuration than hardware description,
IMO chosen node is one option. However it's good to get opinion from DT guys.

> Are there some reasonable defaults that Linux could use independent of the
> platform and of what the boot loader defaults to?
> 

Most of these registers can't be programmed in Non-secure mode. So as mentioned
already in previous discussions it is better to avoid these settings in kernel.
It would be better if bootloader programs these settings even if Linux runs in
secure mode for simplicity.

Regards,
Sudeep

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Sudeep.Holla@arm.com, Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@linaro.org>,
	"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux@arm.linux.org.uk" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: cache-l2x0: Parse properties from DT for PL310 cache controller
Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2014 15:55:45 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52CC2381.2090905@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4325123.pn10H18tk9@wuerfel>

On 07/01/14 12:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 January 2014 12:41:42 Sudeep Holla wrote:
>> Hi Tushar,
>>
>> This has been discussed couple of times in past[1][2], and the opinion was not
>> to have these in DT as they are more configuration data than the actual hardware
>> description.
> 
> How do you suggest we get rid of the magic constants in platform code then?
> I definitely don't want to keep the current state, and having configuration
> data in DT seems the lesser evil.
> 

I agree, but since these are more L2CC configuration than hardware description,
IMO chosen node is one option. However it's good to get opinion from DT guys.

> Are there some reasonable defaults that Linux could use independent of the
> platform and of what the boot loader defaults to?
> 

Most of these registers can't be programmed in Non-secure mode. So as mentioned
already in previous discussions it is better to avoid these settings in kernel.
It would be better if bootloader programs these settings even if Linux runs in
secure mode for simplicity.

Regards,
Sudeep


  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-07 15:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-01-07 11:41 [PATCH] ARM: cache-l2x0: Parse properties from DT for PL310 cache controller Tushar Behera
2014-01-07 11:41 ` Tushar Behera
2014-01-07 11:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-07 11:57   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-07 12:10   ` Tushar Behera
2014-01-07 12:10     ` Tushar Behera
2014-01-07 12:41 ` Sudeep Holla
2014-01-07 12:41   ` Sudeep Holla
2014-01-07 12:54   ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-07 12:54     ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-07 15:55     ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2014-01-07 15:55       ` Sudeep Holla
2014-01-07 16:12       ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-07 16:12         ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-01-07 16:43         ` Sudeep Holla
2014-01-07 16:43           ` Sudeep Holla

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=52CC2381.2090905@arm.com \
    --to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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.