On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 10:51:34AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.

Hi Krzysztof,

I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:

quoted

1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,

The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
revert back to 64-bit addresses.

We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
(although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.

quoted

quoted

2. Move GPU under /soc node,

No problem

quoted

3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.

IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.

Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.

Looking through the history of pending material, I didn't see a new pull for
this material. Just checking in to see if there's something we missed?

No, it's me who forgot to resend. I was sure that I rebased the branch
and created new pull request. However it seems I did not. Let's keep it
for next merge window... v5.4-rc should be any minute, I guess?

Best regards,
Krzysztof