Patchwork [PATCHv2,4/4] arm64: dts: stratix10: Add OCRAM EDAC node

login
register
mail settings
Submitter thor.thayer@linux.intel.com
Date Jan. 22, 2019, 5:48 p.m.
Message ID <1548179287-21760-5-git-send-email-thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/706793/
State New
Headers show

Comments

thor.thayer@linux.intel.com - Jan. 22, 2019, 5:48 p.m.
From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>

Add the OCRAM ECC node following the Arria10 format.

Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>
---
v2  No changes
---
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi | 7 +++++++
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
Dinh Nguyen - Jan. 23, 2019, 4:56 p.m.
On 1/22/19 11:48 AM, thor.thayer@linux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Add the OCRAM ECC node following the Arria10 format.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> v2  No changes
> ---
>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi | 7 +++++++
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
> index 8253a1a9e985..a625dc472b91 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
> @@ -494,6 +494,13 @@
>  				interrupts = <16 4>, <48 4>;
>  			};
>  
> +			ocram-ecc@ff8cc000 {
> +				compatible = "altr,socfpga-a10-ocram-ecc";

Are you absolutely sure there are no differences in the Stratix10 versus
A10? I wonder if it would be safer to have a platform specific binding
for Stratix10 rather than re-using A10. It would prevent from having to
change bindings later.

Dinh
thor.thayer@linux.intel.com - Jan. 24, 2019, 3:42 p.m.
On 1/23/19 10:56 AM, Dinh Nguyen wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/22/19 11:48 AM, thor.thayer@linux.intel.com wrote:
>> From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>
>>
>> Add the OCRAM ECC node following the Arria10 format.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> v2  No changes
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi | 7 +++++++
>>   1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
>> index 8253a1a9e985..a625dc472b91 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
>> @@ -494,6 +494,13 @@
>>   				interrupts = <16 4>, <48 4>;
>>   			};
>>   
>> +			ocram-ecc@ff8cc000 {
>> +				compatible = "altr,socfpga-a10-ocram-ecc";
> 
> Are you absolutely sure there are no differences in the Stratix10 versus
> A10? I wonder if it would be safer to have a platform specific binding
> for Stratix10 rather than re-using A10. It would prevent from having to
> change bindings later.
> 
> Dinh
> 

They are the same functionally. However, you bring up a good point. 
There are differences related to the underlying architecture - 32bit vs 
64bit.

I will respin this series (except for the first fixup patch) with new 
bindings for S10.

Thanks,

Thor

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
index 8253a1a9e985..a625dc472b91 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/altera/socfpga_stratix10.dtsi
@@ -494,6 +494,13 @@ 
 				interrupts = <16 4>, <48 4>;
 			};
 
+			ocram-ecc@ff8cc000 {
+				compatible = "altr,socfpga-a10-ocram-ecc";
+				reg = <0xff8cc000 0x100>;
+				interrupts = <1 4>,
+					     <33 4>;
+			};
+
 			usb0-ecc@ff8c4000 {
 				compatible = "altr,socfpga-usb-ecc";
 				reg = <0xff8c4000 0x100>;