Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: apple, aic2: New binding for AICv2

From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st>
Cc: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Sven Peter <sven@svenpeter.dev>,
	Alyssa Rosenzweig <alyssa@rosenzweig.io>,
	Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: apple, aic2: New binding for AICv2
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2022 11:35:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ee3e0zcz.wl-maz@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <67171c2a-7601-6dfb-92b3-24c1ca971995@marcan.st>

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 21:58:34 +0000,
Hector Martin <marcan@marcan.st> wrote:
> 
> On 26/02/2022 05.19, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> +properties:
> >> +  compatible:
> >> +    items:
> >> +      - const: apple,t6000-aic
> >> +      - const: apple,aic2
> > 
> > I feel I was sold on Apple doesn't change h/w and we're the 2nd chip in 
> > and the h/w changed. Just my musings, but aic3 will be rejected. :(
> 
> Well yes, after not changing hardware for N phone/tablet generations,
> they figured out they *finally* had to make some changes for real
> desktop chips... (t8103 was a tablet chip they shoehorned into laptops;
> t6000 is the first real laptop/desktop chip). This isn't the 2nd chip
> in, this is the 26th chip in or so, and yet it's called AIC2 (by Apple
> even)... We aren't starting from chip #1, just the first chip they
> decided to *let* us put Linux on.
> 
> It's pretty clear that the t6000 changes were made with future-proofing
> in mind. I guess we'll find out in a couple weeks, since the rumor mill
> says M2 is coming. If I'm right and we end up needing *zero* kernel
> changes to boot on M2, will you be happy? ;-)
> 
> >> +  apple,event-reg:
> >> +    $ref: /schemas/types.yaml#/definitions/uint32
> >> +    description:
> >> +      Specifies the offset of the event register, which lies after all the
> >> +      implemented die register sets, page aligned. This is not computable from
> >> +      capability register values, so we have to specify it explicitly.
> > 
> > If this is last, then couldn't it be a 2nd 'reg' entry?
> > 
> > 'page aligned' is ambiguous. I assume that means 16K since that's what 
> > Apple uses, but I might assume 4K not knowing that.
> 
> 16K, and yeah, it could be a 2nd reg entry if you think that works
> better. Makes sense.

Do you plan to respin this? If I'm going to that this series for 5.18,
it needs to be this week.

Thanks,

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel