On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 13:31:13 +0100, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 10:01:34AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:54:52 +0100, Michael Walle michael@walle.cc wrote:
Please stop throwing every ad-hoc information in the device tree. Use the official bindings (or maybe some bindings which will get approved soon).
On the quest of syncing the device tree used in u-boot with the one used in linux, there is this nice piece:
gic_lpi_base: syscon@0x80000000 { compatible = "gic-lpi-base"; reg = <0x0 0x80000000 0x0 0x100000>; max-gic-redistributors = <2>; };
There is no offical binding for it. Also, the chances that there will be one are virtually zero. We need to get rid of it. In fact, most information there are already known or can be deduced via the offical binding.
It is not "virtually zero". It is *exactly* zero. This node only shows that the author didn't understand the nature of the problem, nor were they aware of the existing solution which has been around since July 2018. This solution doesn't require any update to the binding, only to reserve the memory.
I really wish people would stop piling crap in u-boot, and that the u-boot maintainers would reach out to people familiar with the architecture before merging this sort of changes.
I'd be happy to reach out to people if I knew who would be receptive to spending some of their already I assume overload spare time looking in to things. If you're volunteering for "GIC related things" I'd be happy to CC you when patches come up. Thanks!
Absolutely. It is far less painful for me to quickly eyeball a change and ask pointed questions on the spot, rather than having to reverse engineer a set of dubious changes months after they have been merged.
I already provide similar "services" for EDK2, for example, so getting the odd u-boot patch in my k.org inbox isn't a big deal.
Thanks,
M.