From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brijesh Singh Subject: Re: [PATCH] EDAC: Add AMD Seattle SoC EDAC Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:16:01 -0500 Message-ID: <562692F1.1030209@amd.com> 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> <20151020173639.GH31130@pd.tnic> <20151020174144.GD4943@leverpostej> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151020174144.GD4943@leverpostej> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Mark Rutland , Borislav Petkov Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, brijeshkumar.singh@amd.com, pawel.moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, dougthompson@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, galak@codeaurora.org, mchehab@osg.samsung.com, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 10/20/2015 12:41 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 07:36:39PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: >> 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. > > Please note that this is specific to Cortex-A57, not ARMv8 or aarch64. > > It is an IMPLEMENTATION DEFINED feature as implemented by Cortex-A57, > which by definition is not implemented by other CPUs. It is not provided > by the ARM architecture. > > So this cannot be arm64_edac, but could potentially be cortex_a57_edac. > Yes code is generic to Cortex A57 and naming it cortex_a57_edac sounds good. Also I will follow your suggestion and remove DT binding and use MIDR. > Thanks, > Mark. >