On 10:29 Wed 24 Apr , Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 08:52:59PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > wrote: > > On 14:53 Tue 23 Apr , Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 02:11:46PM +0100, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > On 04/22/2013 10:27 AM, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote: > > > > > This patch updates the in-kernel dts files according to the latest > > > > > cpus > > > > > and cpu bindings updates for ARM. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieral...@arm.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9263.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9g45.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9n12.dtsi | 2 +- > > > > > 4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi > > > > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi > > > > > index cb7bcc5..2e9de85 100644 > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi > > > > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/at91sam9260.dtsi > > > > > @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ > > > > > }; > > > > > cpus { > > > > > cpu@0 { > > > > > - compatible = "arm,arm926ejs"; > > > > > + compatible = "arm,arm926"; > > > > > > > > I don't understand why you are doing this. If this does not match the > > > > documentation, fix the documentation. We can't continue on changing dts > > > > files without reqard to breaking compatibility. > > > > > > IMHO compatibility is already broken. There are a number of dts in the > > > kernel missing cpus and cpu nodes, others with cpu nodes missing > > > device_type = "cpu", missing cpu nodes compatible properties and the list > > > goes on and on. Those files got merged in the kernel before bindings were > > > properly defined for ARM so at that point in time the only reference was > > > the > > > ePAPR and still, it was not followed (eg my broken patch above fails to > > > add > > > device_type = "cpu" to the cpu node, should I change the documentation > > > (ePAPR) > > > to make the dts above compliant ? I do not think so, I reckon we should > > > fix > > > all dts and force them to comply with the ePAPR and the in-kernel > > > bindings). > > > > > > If we do not set in stone the bindings and draw a line now, this stuff > > > will > > > go wild, it is already in a state that I do not like much. > > > > > > The reason we are patching the compatible property above is to avoid > > > having > > > compatible properties containing suffixes for CPUs, we do not deem that > > > necessary, see: > > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-January/145305.html > > > > > > That's just my opinion, open to change it to find a proper solution to > > > this > > > issue as long as we make progress. > > > > I do not agree when you set the compatible you need to be preceise the cpu > > is > > a arm926ejs not a arm926 > > I updated the bindings with all processor variants so that we will all > be happy again (I hope). My comments still stand though and these dts need > patching, I am posting the required changes in v3.
ok tks put me in Cc for at91 Best Regards, J. > > Lorenzo > _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss