From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com (Brijesh Singh)
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:16:01 -0500
Subject: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC
In-Reply-To: <20151020174144.GD4943@leverpostej>
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> <20151020174144.GD4943@leverpostej>
Message-ID: <562692F1.1030209@amd.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org



On 10/20/2015 12:41 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.
> 

Yes code is generic to Cortex A57 and naming it cortex_a57_edac sounds good.

Also I will follow your suggestion and remove DT binding and use MIDR. 

> Thanks,
> Mark.
>