Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1406465 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: Add documentation for APM X-Gene SoC PMU DTS binding

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: Add documentation for APM X-Gene  SoC PMU DTS binding Tai Tri Nguyen <ttnguyen@apm.com> - 2016-05-24 23:20 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: Add documentation for APM X-Gene  SoC PMU DTS binding Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> - 2016-05-31 18:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: Add documentation for APM X-Gene  SoC PMU DTS binding Tai Tri Nguyen <ttnguyen@apm.com> - 2016-05-31 19:20 +0200

#1406465 — Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] Documentation: Add documentation for APM X-Gene SoC PMU DTS binding

Hi all,

It's been weeks.
I just want to ping again if you have any more comments on this patch set?

Thanks,
Tai

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Tai Tri Nguyen <ttnguyen@apm.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob/Mark,
>
> Do you have any more comments, please?
>
> Thanks,
> Tai
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Tai Tri Nguyen <ttnguyen@apm.com> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 1:56 PM, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:31:22PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 01:04:53PM -0700, Tai Tri Nguyen wrote:
>>>> > >> +Required properties for MCB subnode:
>>>> > >> +- compatible         : Shall be "apm,xgene-pmu-mcb".
>>>> > >> +- reg                        : First resource shall be the MCB PMU resource.
>>>> > >> +- index                      : Instance number of the MCB PMU.
>>>> > >> +
>>>> > >> +Required properties for MC subnode:
>>>> > >> +- compatible         : Shall be "apm,xgene-pmu-mc".
>>>> > >> +- reg                        : First resource shall be the MC PMU resource.
>>>> > >> +- index                      : Instance number of the MC PMU.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > Don't use indexes. You probably need phandles to the nodes these are
>>>> > > related to.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > How many variations of child nodes do you expect to have? 2, 10, 50? You
>>>> > > might want to just collapse all this down to a single node and put this
>>>> > > information in the driver if it is fixed for each SoC and there's only a
>>>> > > handful.
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > For each kind of PMU, for example memory controller PMU, I expect to
>>>> > have the number of instances up to 8.
>>>> > They are actually all independent PMU nodes and have their own CSR memory bases.
>>>> > The indexes are used for exposing the devices to perf user only. It
>>>> > doesn't have an impact on the programming model.
>>>> > Mark also had the same concern.
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, I'll need an ack from Rob or Mark before I can merge this.
>>>
>>> I still have a concern with this. Needing an index to expose to the user
>>> is generally not a valid reason. That's OS specific and therefore
>>> doesn't belong in DT.
>>>
>>> Rob
>>
>> I can use device name here. However, the perf event names will be
>> different between DT and ACPI which I want to avoid.
>> And the names don't look good at all.
>> Also, specifically for MC and MCB PMUs, the indexes are compared
>> against the active MC/MCB mask to find out whether they are populated
>> or not.
>> Without using the index property, I will also need a mapping function
>> of physical device addresses and their physical ids.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> --
>> Tai
>
>
>
> --
> Tai



-- 
Tai

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1410407

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 02:12:19PM -0700, Tai Tri Nguyen wrote:
> It's been weeks.
> I just want to ping again if you have any more comments on this patch set?

We seem to have reached a stalemate whereby:

  - The devicetree maintainers don't agree with your binding
  - You don't agree with them
  - I won't merge the patch without their ack

so I guess you either need to try harder to convince them about the
index-based binding, or bite the bullet and fix it to make them happy.

Will

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1410460

Hi Will,

On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 02:12:19PM -0700, Tai Tri Nguyen wrote:
>> It's been weeks.
>> I just want to ping again if you have any more comments on this patch set?
>
> We seem to have reached a stalemate whereby:
>
>   - The devicetree maintainers don't agree with your binding
>   - You don't agree with them
>   - I won't merge the patch without their ack
>
> so I guess you either need to try harder to convince them about the
> index-based binding, or bite the bullet and fix it to make them happy.
>
> Will

Thanks. Yes, I will fix it.

Regards,
-- 
Tai

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web