From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 18:41:45 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC
In-Reply-To: <20151020173639.GH31130@pd.tnic>
References: <1445282597-18999-1-git-send-email-brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com>
 <20151019205236.GB453@leverpostej> <56266F7E.6030404@amd.com>
 <20151020165744.GE31130@pd.tnic>
 <20151020172654.GC4943@leverpostej>
 <20151020173639.GH31130@pd.tnic>
Message-ID: <20151020174144.GD4943@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 07:36:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 06:26:55PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > Btw, how much of this is implementing generic A57 functionality?
> > 
> > The driver is entirely A57 generic.
> > 
> > > If a lot, can we make this a generic a57_edac driver so that multiple
> > > vendors can use it?
> > 
> > Yes.
> 
> Ok, cool.
> 
> > > How fast and how ugly can something like that become?
> > 
> > Not sure I follow.
> 
> In the sense that some vendor might require just a little bit different
> handling or maybe wants to read some vendor-specific registers in
> addition to the architectural ones.
> 
> Then we'll start adding vendor-specific hacks to that generic driver.
> And therefore the question how fast and how ugly such hacks would
> become.
> 
> I guess we'll worry about that when we get there...
> 
> So Brijesh, if you only need generic, architectural functionality,
> please call it arm64_edac or so and let's add it so that other arm64
> vendors can use it too.

Please note that this is specific to Cortex-A57, not ARMv8 or aarch64.

It is an IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED feature as implemented by Cortex-A57,
which by definition is not implemented by other CPUs. It is not provided
by the ARM architecture.

So this cannot be arm64_edac, but could potentially be cortex_a57_edac.

Thanks,
Mark.