From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Martin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] ARM: DT: kernel: DT cpu node bindings update Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 15:30:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20130416143018.GB2229@linaro.org> References: <1366042402-8987-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <1366042402-8987-3-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> <516C544A.4090107@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <516C544A.4090107-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Stephen Warren Cc: Nicolas Pitre , Jon Medhurst , Andrew Lunn , Sekhar Nori , Viresh Kumar , Kukjin Kim , Lennert Buytenhek , Russell King , Magnus Damm , Catalin Marinas , David Brown , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Rob Herring , Simon Horman , Barry Song , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Amit Kucheria List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:26:02PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 04/15/2013 10:13 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: [...] > > + - enable-method > > + Usage: required on ARM 64-bit systems, optional on ARM 32-bit > > + systems If we define no meaningful enumerations for 32-bit systems (for example, the spin-table boot method doesn't exist), then arguably this property should be prohibited for 32-bit systems in this version of the binding. The binding should be extended later when we have enable methods to add? (enable-method = "psci" is one plausible addition) > > + Value type: > > + Definition: On ARM 64-bit systems must be "spin-table" [1]. > > Can that be an integer instead? with dtc+cpp support, that shouldn't > hurt the eyes too much any more. That doesn't feel very DT-like, and it makes the standalone FDT excessively cryptic without the headers. Does it really matter that much? DT parsing should not be on any performance-critical path. Mostly, DT convention seems to be to use legible string names for enumerations like this. Anything which tends to encrypt the DT content starts us on a slippery slope IMHO. Converting the DT back to a vaguely human-readable form becomes impossible without the headers. Cheers ---Dave