On 02/11/2011 08:58 AM, Yoder Stuart-B08248 wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Meador Inge [mailto:mead...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 9:26 PM
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Cc: Yoder Stuart-B08248; devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc-
d...@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
Apologies for the bad post. Bad day for email ... Please ignore the top
reply in my previous reply. The full reply is the below the quote.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Meador Inge<meador_i...@mentor.com>
wrote:
On 02/10/2011 02:42 PM, Meador Inge wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Meador Inge<meador_i...@mentor.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM
Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] powerpc: Open PIC binding and "pic-no-reset"
To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Cc: devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org, Hollis Blanchard<
hollis_blanch...@mentor.com>
This patch set provides a binding for Open PIC and implements support
for a new property, specified by that binding, called "pic-no-reset".
With "pic-no-reset" in place the "protected-sources" property is no
longer needed and its full implementation was removed.
"protected-sources" is still checked for, however, for legacy
purposes.
For v3 of this patch the Open PIC binding was changed to be more
consistent with existing bindings, several DTS files were cleaned up,
"no-reset" was changed to "pic-no-reset", and a check to treat
"protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset" was added.
From the feedback I have received so far, the fundamental ideas in this
patch set are sane. However, the following issues still need agreement:
1. What should be the name of the no reset property?
"pic-no-reset" or "no-reset"?
2. Should we just keep the existing protected sources implementation
in place?
For (1), I prefer "no-reset".
I also prefer plain "no-reset". The property is on a pic node so
"pic" on the property seems redundant.
For (2), I still think that we can make "no-
reset" a synonym for "protected-sources" and that things will work out.
Ben, you said that you would really like to leave the protected sources
implementation alone. Is the mechanism implemented in "PATCH
v3 3/4" [1] of having "protected-sources" as a synonym for "pic-no-reset"
not suitable?
I thought what Ben was getting at was that there is existing
firmware that may provide a device tree with protected-sources,
and thus we should continue supporting it for backwards
compatibility.
Yup, Arnd pointed that out as well. That is why in "PATCH v3 3/4" I
added a check for "protected-sources". If it is found, then it is
treated exactly the same way as "no-reset", which should give equivalent
behavior.
For example, say we have 100 sources and the sources [1, 50] are the
only ones actually mentioned in the device tree. Also assume we set
"protected-sources = <51 52 53>".
Then, with the protected sources model sources [1, 50] and [54, 100]
would have there VECPRI/cpu binding initialization. Where as in the
enhanced "no-reset" model, only sources [1, 50] would have the
initialization done.
So unless there is some problem with not initializing the remaining
sources, e.g. sources [51, 100] in the previous example, then the
expanded "no-reset" should offer equivalent behavior to "protected-sources".
So, I would say add "no-reset" as the preferred mechanism
going forward, but keep "protected-sources" for backwards
compatibility.
Stuart
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
--
Meador Inge | meador_inge AT mentor.com
Mentor Embedded | http://www.mentor.com/embedded-software
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
