Hi,

Am 02.03.2017 um 13:47 schrieb Neil Armstrong:

On 03/02/2017 01:31 PM, Andreas F?rber wrote:

quoted

Am 01.03.2017 um 11:46 schrieb Neil Armstrong:

quoted

For GXL, since a lot is shared with the GXM that has a MALI-T820 IP, this
patch adds a new meson-gxl-mali.dtsi and is included in the SoC specific
dtsi files.

This part is slightly confusing though.

What exactly is the GXL vs. GXM difference that this can't be handled by
overriding node properties compatible/interrupts/clocks? I am missing a
GXM patch in this series as rationale for doing it this way.

In particular I am wondering whether the whole GXM-inherits-from-GXL
concept is flawed and should be adjusted if this leads to secondary
.dtsi files like this: My proposal would be to instead create a
meson-gxl-gxm.dtsi, that meson-gxl.dtsi and meson-gxm.dtsi can inherit
the current common parts from, then the Mali bits can simply go into
meson-gxl.dtsi without extra #includes needed in S905X and S905D. While
it's slightly more work to split once again, I think it would be cleaner.

The GXL and GXM differences are very small :
 - They share the same clock tree
 - They share the same pinctrl and even the same pinout (S905D and S912 are pin-to-pin compatible)
 - They share all the peripherals

The only changes are :
 - Enhanced video encoding and decoding support, this will need a family-specific compatible when pushed
 - Slightly differences in the Video Processing Unit, this is why I introduced family-specific compatibles
 - A secondary Cortex-A53 cluster
 - A secondary SCPI cpufreq clock entry
 - A different Mali core, but with the same interrupts (less but they share the same lower interrupts), clocks and memory space

This is why it was decided to have a sub-dtsi, having a secondary dtsi will simply copy 99% of the GXL dtsi,
but surely we could also have an intermediate dtsi but for boards I'm ok with it, but less for a SoC dtsi,
since it could lead to some confusion.

Finally, yes I could have added the mali node to the GXL dtsi, but the midgard Mali dt-bindings are not upstream
and the family is too big and recent enough to consider having stable bindings for now.

OK, my question really was specific to Mali differences. :)

Nevertheless, nothing is final, this gxl-mali.dtsi could be merged into the GXL dtsi in the future when we
have proper dt-bindings and a real support of the T820 Mali on the S912.

What about a /delete-node/ &mali; in meson-gxm.dtsi?
That would avoid having any new .dtsi.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)