From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andre.przywara@arm.com (Andre Przywara) Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2016 14:16:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 7/8] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Extend GXBaby GIC node In-Reply-To: References: <1456789465-2962-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1456789465-2962-8-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <56D57673.8030702@arm.com> <56D57A7F.5020806@suse.de> <56D58E88.2080700@arm.com> Message-ID: <56D5A459.6060303@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 01/03/16 12:53, Carlo Caione wrote: > On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 01/03/16 11:18, Andreas F?rber wrote: >>> Hi Andre, >>> >>> Am 01.03.2016 um 12:01 schrieb Andre Przywara: >>>> On 29/02/16 23:44, Andreas F?rber wrote: >>>>> Add GICH and GICV resources for HYP mode - guess based on other vendors. >>>> >>>> Do you know if the firmware allows the kernel to be entered in EL2 >>>> (which is the arm64 name for HYP)? >>>> So can we run kvm? >>>> If you have a booted kernel, can you grep for "EL2" and "kvm" in the dmesg? >>> >>> I do not have a rootfs yet (MMC v5 patches by Carlo are still waiting >>> for review), but with this change the KVM driver initializes okay - the >>> purpose of this patch! >>> >>>> Also you should merge this patch into 3/8, same for 8/8. >>> >>> If people confirm this is generally or specifically for this SoC correct >>> then sure. So far 3/8 seems a safe subset for lack of public documentation. >> >> The GIC is an integral part of the SoC, so this clearly belongs in there. >> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas F?rber >>>>> --- >>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi | 4 +++- >> >> In general I was wondering if this naming is correct? >> Shouldn't it be something with "s905" in it? Because this the SoC that >> is driving all those hardware and the peripherals that you describe in >> there are clearly within the SoC. >> So something like meson-s905.dtsi or the like? > > When I first submitted support for the meson8 and meson8b I picked up > the names according to the Amlogic SDK. > In the latest Amlogic drop this SoC is identified as meson-gxbb so > probably we should stick to this name. Oh, I guess in this case it's fine then. I was just wondering if we should use a name that is more descriptive to the uninitiated reader. Cheers, Andre.