From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Borislav Petkov Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 19:36:39 +0200 Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151020172654.GC4943@leverpostej> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Brijesh Singh , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, pawel.moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, dougthompson@xmission.com, mchehab@osg.samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.