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