Hi,

On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 09:41:10AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:

quoted

+	timer {
+		compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
+		interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13
+			(GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)>,
+			     <GIC_PPI 14
+			(GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)>,
+			     <GIC_PPI 11
+			(GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)>,
+			     <GIC_PPI 10
+			(GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH)>;
+	};

Can you add a PMU node here? Or shall I send a patch on top of it?
It would be:

	pmu {
        	compatible = "arm,cortex-a53-pmu", "arm,armv8-pmuv3";
		interrupts = <GIC_SPI 120 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
			     <GIC_SPI 121 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,	
			     <GIC_SPI 122 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>,
			     <GIC_SPI 123 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
		interrupt-affinity = <&cpu0>,
				     <&cpu1>,
				     <&cpu2>,
				     <&cpu3>;
	};

This enables perf to use hardware counters (for cycles and instructions,
for instance).

quoted

+
+	clocks {
+		#address-cells = <1>;
+		#size-cells = <1>;
+		ranges;
+
+		osc24M: osc24M_clk {
+			#clock-cells = <0>;
+			compatible = "fixed-clock";
+			clock-frequency = <24000000>;
+			clock-output-names = "osc24M";
+		};
+
+		osc32k: osc32k_clk {
+			#clock-cells = <0>;
+			compatible = "fixed-clock";
+			clock-frequency = <32768>;
+			clock-output-names = "osc32k";
+		};
+	};

Can you remove this "clocks" node and put the two subnodes directly onto
the top level?
I know that putting clocks into a subnode is quite wide spread, but it
does not represent any hardware hierarchy, especially in this
fixed-clock case.
So if we can (and it is easy here!) we should avoid any clocks subnode.

(Yes, I know that this was in my original DT as well, but Mark Rutland
convinced me of this.)

I'll do those changes before sending the new version.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com