From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 12:03:00 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: dts: add initial dts for Samsung GH7 SoC and SSDK-GH7 board In-Reply-To: <52FB5DB1.4090609@arm.com> References: <1392100183-30930-1-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <1392100183-30930-2-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <52FB575F.3070104@arm.com> <20140212112946.GD21992@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <52FB5DB1.4090609@arm.com> Message-ID: <52F992E4.5040800@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/12/14 20:40, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On 12/02/14 11:29, Mark Rutland wrote: >>>>> + gic: interrupt-controller at 1C000000 { >>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic", "arm,cortex-a9-gic"; >>>> >>>> This looks incorrect -- you should at the very least have a more >>>> specific one than a15-gic? Marc? >>> >>> "arm,cortex-a9-gic" is definitely wrong (the A9 GIC doesn't have the >>> virt extensions). This binding matches what the A15 GIC has, so >>> "arm,cortex-a15-gic" is probably fine. Main issue here is that the GICv2 >>> driver has no compatible string for anything else. >>> >>> Should we define something more generic (like "arm,gic-v2")? Or carry on >>> adding more compatible strings? >> >> It's been proposed repeatedly, and it probably makes sense to add the >> generic versions to the driver, and allow for more specific ones in the >> binding which DTs can use. That way we don't get an explosion of strings >> in the driver, but if we need to handle any particular GIC specially in >> future we can do so. >> >> I guess for Linux we'd want to add "arm,gic-v1" and "arm,gic-v2" to the >> driver. We could just add "arm,gic-v1" and expect it later in the >> compatible list if v2 is a strict superset of v1; I think it is but I'm >> not a GIC expert. > > Sounds good to me. > OK, so did you guys agree to use version for gic? I'm fine to use gic-v2. And so who will take changing for others in mainline? ;-) - Kukjin