From: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>, Pawel Moll <pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>, Liviu Dudau <liviu.dudau-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>, Rob Herring <robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org>, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: arm64: dts: Add expansion bus to VExpress and Juno Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:14:59 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160405081458.GA18740@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <57029EC7.8030802-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> Hi Sudeep, On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 06:05:11PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >How do you plan to add those additional hardware on the expansion bus ? > >IIUC having them in DT and running on a system without the tile >connected will cause aborts, hence you are just adding bus definition. > >Is there any use in having just the bus definition in DT. If you are >planning to add devices using overlays, can't the bus definition also >be added then ? Did you mean "then" as "when I submit the overlay patches" or "add the bus in the overlay"? I wasn't sure the overlays would get accepted into mainline as they describe proprietary FPGA bitfiles which aren't going to be publicly available. We should be able to upstream them if that's not an issue. I'm still interested in getting the bus definition upstream so that we have a basis for defining our bitfile overlays in our kernel tree(s). Previously there's been no example or convention leading us to hack the DTs together in various ways: https://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/arm/kernel.git/commit/14ebf51be6ead99b3861d779bdcf3cee18ab81d6 https://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/arm/kernel.git/commit/8e3f902e202f48e2b424c0f049f3894ac83c4c65 As for adding it via overlays; as we use the same bitfile on multiple platforms, we'd need to maintain and apply a bunch of overlays: one per-platform for the bus, and one per bitfile for the devices. It seemed better to get the bus definition (which is fixed) into the base platform definitions, then we only need overlays to describe the devices which are unique to a bitfile. Having the bus definition also serves to document the interrupt lines and address ranges on the different platforms. > >I am fine with the patch as such, just wanted to know the information. > Thanks for having a look, Brian >-- >Regards, >Sudeep > >_______________________________________________ >linux-arm-kernel mailing list >linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org >http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: brian.starkey@arm.com (Brian Starkey) To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: [PATCH] ARM: arm64: dts: Add expansion bus to VExpress and Juno Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 09:14:59 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20160405081458.GA18740@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <57029EC7.8030802@arm.com> Hi Sudeep, On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 06:05:11PM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: >How do you plan to add those additional hardware on the expansion bus ? > >IIUC having them in DT and running on a system without the tile >connected will cause aborts, hence you are just adding bus definition. > >Is there any use in having just the bus definition in DT. If you are >planning to add devices using overlays, can't the bus definition also >be added then ? Did you mean "then" as "when I submit the overlay patches" or "add the bus in the overlay"? I wasn't sure the overlays would get accepted into mainline as they describe proprietary FPGA bitfiles which aren't going to be publicly available. We should be able to upstream them if that's not an issue. I'm still interested in getting the bus definition upstream so that we have a basis for defining our bitfile overlays in our kernel tree(s). Previously there's been no example or convention leading us to hack the DTs together in various ways: https://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/arm/kernel.git/commit/14ebf51be6ead99b3861d779bdcf3cee18ab81d6 https://git.linaro.org/landing-teams/working/arm/kernel.git/commit/8e3f902e202f48e2b424c0f049f3894ac83c4c65 As for adding it via overlays; as we use the same bitfile on multiple platforms, we'd need to maintain and apply a bunch of overlays: one per-platform for the bus, and one per bitfile for the devices. It seemed better to get the bus definition (which is fixed) into the base platform definitions, then we only need overlays to describe the devices which are unique to a bitfile. Having the bus definition also serves to document the interrupt lines and address ranges on the different platforms. > >I am fine with the patch as such, just wanted to know the information. > Thanks for having a look, Brian >-- >Regards, >Sudeep > >_______________________________________________ >linux-arm-kernel mailing list >linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org >http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-05 8:14 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-04-04 16:20 [PATCH] ARM: arm64: dts: Add expansion bus to VExpress and Juno Brian Starkey 2016-04-04 16:20 ` Brian Starkey [not found] ` <1459786850-29409-1-git-send-email-brian.starkey-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-04 16:54 ` Liviu Dudau 2016-04-04 16:54 ` Liviu Dudau 2016-04-04 17:05 ` Sudeep Holla 2016-04-04 17:05 ` Sudeep Holla [not found] ` <57029EC7.8030802-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> 2016-04-05 8:14 ` Brian Starkey [this message] 2016-04-05 8:14 ` Brian Starkey
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20160405081458.GA18740@e106950-lin.cambridge.arm.com \ --to=brian.starkey-5wv7dgnigg8@public.gmane.org \ --cc=devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \ --cc=liviu.dudau-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \ --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \ --cc=pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \ --cc=robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org \ --cc=sudeep.holla-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.