From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/10] ARM: dts: Add initial device tree support for Exynos5420 Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:46:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20130617084648.GA6809@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1370516488-25860-10-git-send-email-chander.kashyap@linaro.org> <1371218572-8993-1-git-send-email-chander.kashyap@linaro.org> <1371218572-8993-8-git-send-email-chander.kashyap@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:35395 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756074Ab3FQIrW (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jun 2013 04:47:22 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1371218572-8993-8-git-send-email-chander.kashyap@linaro.org> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Chander Kashyap Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-serial@vger.kernel.org" , "kgene.kim@samsung.com" , "t.figa@samsung.com" , "s.nawrocki@samsung.com" , "thomas.ab@samsung.com" Hi, > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..43f0eb8 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420-smdk5420.dts > @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ > +/* > + * SAMSUNG SMDK5420 board device tree source > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2013 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > + * http://www.samsung.com > + * > + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > + * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > + * published by the Free Software Foundation. > +*/ > + > +/dts-v1/; > +#include "exynos5420.dtsi" > + > +/ { > + model = "Samsung SMDK5420 board based on EXYNOS5420"; > + compatible = "samsung,smdk5420", "samsung,exynos5420"; > + > + memory { > + reg = <0x20000000 0x10000000 > + 0x30000000 0x10000000 > + 0x40000000 0x10000000 > + 0x50000000 0x10000000 > + 0x60000000 0x10000000 > + 0x70000000 0x10000000 > + 0x80000000 0x10000000 > + 0x90000000 0x10000000>; > + }; As splitting these into 256MB banks is a workaround for an implementation issue, there should at least be a comment to that effect. It would be far nicer if this were described as one bank and the kernel could split it up as necessary when using sparsemem. Thanks, Mark.