From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dingtianhong@huawei.com (Ding Tianhong)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:59:27 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: arch_timer: Add device tree binding for
 hisilicon-161x01 erratum
In-Reply-To: <20161024133945.GL15620@leverpostej>
References: <962ea92f-870b-e1d0-5bb7-1a6d66c35122@huawei.com>
 <20161024111608.GG15620@leverpostej>
 <7e839df8-f8f7-3b16-8321-4ff45b6c5884@huawei.com>
 <20161024131617.GJ15620@leverpostej>
 <1dcfb21a-7417-282e-f187-425d2c148672@huawei.com>
 <20161024133945.GL15620@leverpostej>
Message-ID: <05ebde92-60b5-88aa-0875-a9d2729eff8c@huawei.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 2016/10/24 21:39, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:23:10PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>> On 2016/10/24 21:16, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 08:40:01PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote:
>>>> On 2016/10/24 19:16, Mark Rutland wrote:
>>>>> Is "161x01" the *exact* erratum number, or is the 'x' a wildcard?
>>>>
>>>> The 'x' is a wildcard, it will cover 161001 to 161601 several numbers,
>>>
>>> Given you're using a wildcard, I take it that this is a *part* number?
>>
>> Yes, I was doubt how to fix this, should I choose a better erratum number?
> 
> Typically, we expect that each vendor has some central database of their
> errata, with each having a unique ID.
> 
> If Huawei do not have such a database, I do not think that we should
> invent an erratum number here.
> 

Hi Marko<

After discussion with our chip developer, we decide the 161601 as the *exact* erratum number for this chip to cover
all the problem and register this in our company's database, thanks.

Ding

> Thanks,
> Mark.
> 
> .
>