| Message ID | 20190911183632.4317-1-krzk@kernel.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [GIT,PULL,1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4 | expand |
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > 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: > 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. > 2. Move GPU under /soc node, No problem > 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. Arnd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#556): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/556 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/34106877/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > 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: > > > 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. > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node, > > No problem > > > 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. Best regards, Krzysztof -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#560): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/560 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/34106877/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi On 2019-09-12 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: >>> 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: >> >>> 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. I decided to go with 32bit version to make the fix smaller and easier to backport. If you select revert, make sure that it is applied after moving gpu node under /soc, otherwise the gpu node will have incorrect (32bit) reg property. Also add the gpu related patch as an (optional?) prerequisite for it. >> 2. Move GPU under /soc node, >> No problem >> >>> 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. Ookay, I wasn't aware of that. Best regards
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 08:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node, > > > > No problem > > > > > 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. Short update: no, address-cells are not required by bindings. They are optional. In case of lack of them, the parent address-cells will be used so effectively this patch was changing it from 0 to 1. Anyway this was not expressed in commit msg so I'll drop it. Best regards, Krzysztof -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#562): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/562 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/34106877/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi, On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > 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: > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node, > > > > No problem > > > > > 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? Thanks, -Olof -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#582): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/582 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/34106877/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
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: > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node, > > > > > > No problem > > > > > > > 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 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#585): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/585 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/34106877/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:02 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > 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: > > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > 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: > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node, > > > > > > > > No problem > > > > > > > > > 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? Yeah, we're too late for this merge window but feel free to send it for next release. -Olof -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#587): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/587 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/34106877/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi, Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next. Best regards, Krzysztof The following changes since commit 5f9e832c137075045d15cd6899ab0505cfb2ca4b: Linus 5.3-rc1 (2019-07-21 14:05:38 -0700) are available in the Git repository at: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.4 for you to fetch changes up to 266cf9826de38efac416e744d42364ac7fa9dc5b: arm64: dts: exynos: Remove useless #address-cells property for GIC node (2019-09-05 21:27:17 +0200) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.4 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node, 2. Move GPU under /soc node, 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marek Szyprowski (4): arm64: dts: exynos: Propagate address/size cell change to /memory node arm64: dts: exynos: Move GPU under /soc node for Exynos5433 arm64: dts: exynos: Move GPU under /soc node for Exynos7 arm64: dts: exynos: Remove useless #address-cells property for GIC node .../boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433-tm2-common.dtsi | 2 +- arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos5433.dtsi | 102 ++++++++++----------- arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7-espresso.dts | 2 +- arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos7.dtsi | 23 +++-- 4 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#554): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/554 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/34106877/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-