From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:42:59 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/5] ARM: kernel: add device tree init map function
In-Reply-To: <1352471654-20207-3-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
References: <1352471654-20207-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
 <1352471654-20207-3-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Message-ID: <20121109144259.GB17405@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 02:34:11PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> When booting through a device tree, the kernel cpu logical id map can be
> initialized using device tree data passed by FW or through an embedded blob.
> 
> This patch adds a function that parses device tree "cpu" nodes and
> retrieves the corresponding CPUs hardware identifiers (MPIDR).
> It sets the possible cpus and the cpu logical map values according to
> the number of CPUs defined in the device tree and respective properties.
> 
> The device tree HW identifiers are considered valid if all CPU nodes contain
> a "reg" property and the DT defines a CPU node that matches the MPIDR[23:0]
> of the boot CPU.
> 
> The primary CPU is assigned cpu logical number 0 to keep the current convention
> valid.
> 
> Current bindings documentation is included in the patch:
> 
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>

[...]

> +List of possible "compatible" string ids:
> +
> +<arm, arm1020>
> +<arm, arm1020e>
> +<arm, arm1022>
> +<arm, arm1026>
> +<arm, arm720>
> +<arm, arm740>
> +<arm, arm7tdmi>
> +<arm, arm920>
> +<arm, arm922>
> +<arm, arm925>
> +<arm, arm926>
> +<arm, arm940>
> +<arm, arm946>
> +<arm, arm9tdmi>
> +<arm, fa526>
> +<arm, feroceon>
> +<arm, mohawk>
> +<arm, sa110>
> +<arm, sa1100>
> +<arm, xsc3>
> +<arm, xscale>
> +<arm, cortex-a5>
> +<arm, cortex-a7>
> +<arm, cortex-a8>
> +<arm, cortex-a9>
> +<arm, cortex-a15>
> +<arm, arm1136>
> +<arm, arm11-mpcore>

Is this supposed to be an exhaustive list? What about 1156 and 1176? Also,
"arm11mpcore" should probably be used instead of "arm11-mpcore".

Will