[PATCH v5 2/4] devicetree: bindings: Document Krait CPU/L1 EDAC
From: Stephen Boyd <hidden>
Date: 2014-03-11 21:03:58
Also in:
linux-arm-msm, linux-devicetree, lkml
On 03/11, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 11:08:56PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:quoted
Or should we be expressing the L1 cache as well? Something like: cpus { #address-cells = <1>; #size-cells = <0>; cpu at 0 { compatible = "qcom,krait"; device_type = "cpu"; reg = <0>; next-level-cache = <&L1_0>; L1_0: l1-cache { compatible = "arm,arch-cache"; interrupts = <1 14 0x304>; next-level-cache = <&L2>; } }; cpu at 1 { compatible = "qcom,krait"; device_type = "cpu"; reg = <1>; next-level-cache = <&L1_1>; L1_1: l1-cache { compatible = "arm,arch-cache"; interrupts = <1 14 0x304>; next-level-cache = <&L2>; } }; L2: l2-cache { compatible = "arm,arch-cache"; interrupts = <0 2 0x4>; }; }; (I'm also wondering if the 3rd cell of the interrupt binding should only indicate the CPU that the interrupt property is inside?)I am not aware of interrupts associated with vanilla :) "arm,arch-cache" objects, so I think that should be handled as a "qcom,krait" specific property (in the cpu node), or you should add another cache binding (compatible) for that. As you might have noticed (idle states thread) I am keen on defining objects for L1 caches explicitly, that patch still requires an ACK though (and you need to update it since you cannot add an interrupt property for all "arm,arch-cache" objects. I am sorry for being a pain, but I do not think that's correct from a HW description standpoint).
Ok. s/arm,arch-cache/qcom,arch-cache/ then. I imagine it is easy enough to add some bits in the cache binding once it's accepted. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation