[PATCH 6/6 v4] ARM: realview: basic device tree implementation

[Mark Rutland]

Hi Linus,

On Mon, Sep 01, 2014 at 12:52:49PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> Some ARM1176JZF confusion in as separate thread...
> 
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland at arm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 02:23:48PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 
> >> +               /* Primary DevChip GIC synthesized with the CPU */
> >> +               intc_dc1176: interrupt-controller at 10120000 {
> >> +                       compatible = "arm,arm1176jzf-gic";
> >
> > As far as I am aware, the JZF flags haven nothing to do with the GIC
> > implementation. I think they can be dropped from this string (following
> > the example of "arm,arm1176-pmu").
> 
> FWIW I changed the string to "arm,arm1176-gic"

Ok.

> But this isn't about the CPU actually. It is the ARM1176JZF development
> chip. See:
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.ddi0375a/DDI0375A_arm1176jzf_dev_chip_r0p0_trm.pdf
> 
> I know it is confusingly named as a name of a SoC that has this
> CPU inside it but what can I do ... some guys named ARM came
> up with this.

Ah, I see. Sorry for the confusion there.

> Should use the string "arm,arm1176jzf-devchip-gic"?

That sounds fine to me.

The document you've linked to says the GIC is derived from the MPCore
GIC, so I'd place "arm,arm11mp-gic" as a fallback entry in the
compatible list. Until we need to distinguish the two the driver
shouldn't need to be updated.

> 
> >> +               /* This GIC on the board is cascaded off the DevChip GIC */
> >> +               intc_pb1176: interrupt-controller at 10040000 {
> >> +                       compatible = "arm,arm1176jzf-gic";
> >
> > And this isn't part of the CPU, so that string doesn't look right. I'd
> > at least like to see an additional string earlier in the list
> 
> This seems to be a follow-on to the above confusion.

Yup.

Thanks,
Mark.