[PATCH 7/8] ARM64: dts: amlogic: Extend GXBaby GIC node

[Andreas Färber]

Am 02.03.2016 um 01:03 schrieb André Przywara:
> On 01/03/16 23:31, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 01.03.2016 um 13:43 schrieb Andre Przywara:
>>> On 01/03/16 11:18, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Am 01.03.2016 um 12:01 schrieb Andre Przywara:
>>>>> On 29/02/16 23:44, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi
>>>>>> index 0ae089bd1806..5088ae3ff653 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/amlogic/meson-gxbb.dtsi
>>>>>> @@ -117,7 +117,9 @@
>>>>>>  		gic: interrupt-controller at c4301000 {
>>>>>>  			compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic", "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>>>>>
>>>>> I think "arm,gic-400" is the name to use here these days, especially for
>>>>> arm64.
>>>>
>>>> I took what /proc/device-tree showed on Android and verified that this
>>>> compatible is in use in mainline.
>>>
>>> Some vendor Android kernel is not a good reference for mainline work ;-)
>>> Better look at other DTs in arch/arm64/boot/dts.
>>
>> Yes, that's what "in use in mainline" refers to:
>>
>> $ git grep "cortex-a15-gic" -- arch/arm64/boot/dts/ | grep -v gic-400
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm/apm-shadowcat.dtsi: compatible =
>> "arm,cortex-a15-gic";
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/apm/apm-storm.dtsi: compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic";
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/foundation-v8.dts: compatible =
>> "arm,cortex-a15-gic", "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/arm/rtsm_ve-aemv8a.dts: compatible =
>> "arm,cortex-a15-gic", "arm,cortex-a9-gic";
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/nvidia/tegra132.dtsi: compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic";
> 
> Which is mainly because those DTs predate the introduction of
> "arm,gic-400". Other DTs kept the cortex strings in additionally to stay
> compatible with older kernels.

Sure, but shouldn't we update them to have arm,gic-400 first then?

>>> You could keep "arm,cortex-a15-gic" in there if you care about
>>> compatibility with older (vendor) kernels, but I guess there are other
>>> issues which prevent this anyway, so you could drop this as well.
>>
>> Yeah, I don't care about backwards compatibility with downstream
>> kernels, they use weird compatible strings with spaces anyway.
> 
> So please drop it and use only "arm,gic-400" to be in line with all the
> other more recent SoCs.

Already done, still inserting cbus/aobus nodes and moving uart nodes,
then need to re-test.

Cheers,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)