[PATCH v4 01/10] arm/tegra: initial device tree for tegra30

[Rob Herring]

On 11/14/2011 10:20 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Peter De Schrijver wrote at Monday, November 14, 2011 9:07 AM:
>> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 04:41:13PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2011 09:25 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 04:26:30AM +0100, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On 11/11/2011 05:22 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds the initial device tree for tegra30
> ...
>>>>>> +	interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +	intc: interrupt-controller at 50041000 {
>>>>>> +		compatible = "nvidia,tegra30-gic", "nvidia,tegra20-gic";
>>>>>> +		interrupt-controller;
>>>>>> +		#interrupt-cells = <1>;
>>>>>
>>>>> Is the Tegra GIC really different from a standard A9 gic? You need to
>>>>> update to use the gic binding. The cells should be 3 for example.
>>>>
>>>> It has an extra 'legacy' interrupt controller like tegra20 has. This is used
>>>> when waking up the CPU from power off mode.
>>>
>>> Although that is probably not part of the GIC h/w (i.e. at a different
>>> address) and should be described in the dts separately. That doesn't
>>> change the GIC binding or the fact that you are using
>>> arch/arm/common/gic.c though. Whether you have a different compatible
>>> string or not is not really the issue. That can already be supported if
>>> necessary. The issue is you are not using the existing GIC binding as a
>>> starting point and that has implications on every node using a GIC
>>> interrupt.
>>>
>>
>> The GIC is the same as the one used on tegra20. So I copied the binding from
>> tegra20.dtsi. Is that one wrong too then?
> 
> The existing Tegra20 .dtsi file doesn't use the new GIC bindings yet
> either, which as Peter points out is where he copied the GIC node from.
> My suggestion is that we merge the Tegra30 .dtsi as shown above, and then
> do a single pass to convert both tegra20.dtsi and tegra30.dtsi over to the
> new GIC binding, to prevent blocking the merge of tegra30.dtsi on the GIC
> binding rework. Does that sound fair?
> 

If the change was complex to address then I would agree, but it's not.
In fact, the code to enable GIC DT binding is shorter than the
additional copy of a wrong/incomplete/unused binding. I think it is
needless churn doing as you suggest.

Rob