* Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4
2019-09-12 6:32 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
@ 2019-09-12 6:56 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-09-12 9:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2019-09-29 17:51 ` Olof Johansson
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Marek Szyprowski @ 2019-09-12 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski, Arnd Bergmann
Cc: Olof Johansson, arm-soc, SoC Team, Kukjin Kim, Linux ARM,
moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DTML
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4
2019-09-12 6:32 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2019-09-12 6:56 ` Marek Szyprowski
@ 2019-09-12 9:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2019-09-29 17:51 ` Olof Johansson
2 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2019-09-12 9:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Arnd Bergmann, Marek Szyprowski
Cc: Olof Johansson, arm-soc, SoC Team, Kukjin Kim, Linux ARM,
moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DTML
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4
2019-09-12 6:32 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2019-09-12 6:56 ` Marek Szyprowski
2019-09-12 9:35 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
@ 2019-09-29 17:51 ` Olof Johansson
2019-09-30 8:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Olof Johansson @ 2019-09-29 17:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, arm-soc, SoC Team, Kukjin Kim, Linux ARM,
moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, DTML
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4
2019-09-29 17:51 ` Olof Johansson
@ 2019-09-30 8:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
2019-09-30 17:35 ` Olof Johansson
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski @ 2019-09-30 8:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Olof Johansson
Cc: DTML, moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES,
Arnd Bergmann, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, SoC Team, arm-soc,
Kukjin Kim, Linux ARM
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4
2019-09-30 8:02 ` Krzysztof Kozlowski
@ 2019-09-30 17:35 ` Olof Johansson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Olof Johansson @ 2019-09-30 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski
Cc: DTML, moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES,
Arnd Bergmann, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, SoC Team, arm-soc,
Kukjin Kim, Linux ARM
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread