From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Szyprowski Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 08:56:05 +0200 Message-ID: <39cac04f-684f-ffa5-a5ba-d1734fa00477@samsung.com> References: <20190911183632.4317-1-krzk@kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org 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 List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi On 2019-09-12 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski 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