Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.

Hi Krzysztof,

I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:

> 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,

The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
revert back to 64-bit addresses.

> 2. Move GPU under /soc node,

No problem

> 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.

IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.

    Arnd

Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.
>
> Hi Krzysztof,
>
> I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:
>
> > 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,
>
> The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
> I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
> addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
> that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
> revert back to 64-bit addresses.

We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
(although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.

>
> > 2. Move GPU under /soc node,
>
> No problem
>
> > 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.
>
> IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
> property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
> details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
> the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.

Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

[Marek Szyprowski]

Hi

On 2019-09-12 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.
>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>
>> I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:
>>
>>> 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,
>> The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
>> I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
>> addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
>> that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
>> revert back to 64-bit addresses.
> We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
> 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
> than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
> At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
> (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
> chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.

I decided to go with 32bit version to make the fix smaller and easier to 
backport. If you select revert, make sure that it is applied after 
moving gpu node under /soc, otherwise the gpu node will have incorrect 
(32bit) reg property. Also add the gpu related patch as an (optional?) 
prerequisite for it.

>> 2. Move GPU under /soc node,
>> No problem
>>
>>> 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.
>> IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
>> property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
>> details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
>> the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.
> Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.

Ookay, I wasn't aware of that.


Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland

Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.
> >
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:
> >
> > > 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,
> >
> > The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
> > I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
> > addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
> > that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
> > revert back to 64-bit addresses.
>
> We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
> 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
> than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
> At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
> (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
> chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.
>
> >
> > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node,
> >
> > No problem
> >
> > > 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.
> >
> > IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
> > property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
> > details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
> > the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.
>
> Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.

Short update: no, address-cells are not required by bindings. They are
optional. In case of lack of them, the parent address-cells will be
used so effectively this patch was changing it from 0 to 1. Anyway
this was not expressed in commit msg so I'll drop it.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

[Olof Johansson]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.
> >
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:
> >
> > > 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,
> >
> > The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
> > I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
> > addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
> > that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
> > revert back to 64-bit addresses.
> 
> We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
> 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
> than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
> At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
> (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
> chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.
> 
> >
> > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node,
> >
> > No problem
> >
> > > 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.
> >
> > IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
> > property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
> > details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
> > the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.
> 
> Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.

Looking through the history of pending material, I didn't see a new pull for
this material. Just checking in to see if there's something we missed?


Thanks,


-Olof

Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 10:51:34AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.
> > >
> > > Hi Krzysztof,
> > >
> > > I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:
> > >
> > > > 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,
> > >
> > > The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
> > > I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
> > > addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
> > > that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
> > > revert back to 64-bit addresses.
> > 
> > We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
> > 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
> > than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
> > At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
> > (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
> > chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.
> > 
> > >
> > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node,
> > >
> > > No problem
> > >
> > > > 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.
> > >
> > > IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
> > > property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
> > > details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
> > > the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.
> > 
> > Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.
> 
> Looking through the history of pending material, I didn't see a new pull for
> this material. Just checking in to see if there's something we missed?

No, it's me who forgot to resend. I was sure that I rebased the branch
and created new pull request. However it seems I did not. Let's keep it
for next merge window... v5.4-rc should be any minute, I guess?

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4

[Olof Johansson]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:02 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 10:51:34AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Krzysztof,
> > > >
> > > > I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,
> > > >
> > > > The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
> > > > I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
> > > > addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
> > > > that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
> > > > revert back to 64-bit addresses.
> > >
> > > We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
> > > 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
> > > than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
> > > At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
> > > (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
> > > chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node,
> > > >
> > > > No problem
> > > >
> > > > > 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
> > > > property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
> > > > details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
> > > > the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.
> > >
> > > Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.
> >
> > Looking through the history of pending material, I didn't see a new pull for
> > this material. Just checking in to see if there's something we missed?
>
> No, it's me who forgot to resend. I was sure that I rebased the branch
> and created new pull request. However it seems I did not. Let's keep it
> for next merge window... v5.4-rc should be any minute, I guess?

Yeah, we're too late for this merge window but feel free to send it
for next release.


-Olof