lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Nov]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2 0/3] Add LLCC support for SC7180 SoC
Date
Quoting Sai Prakash Ranjan (2019-11-13 07:00:40)
> Hello Rob,
>
> On 2019-10-25 13:24, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> > On 2019-10-25 04:03, Rob Herring wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 6:00 AM Sai Prakash Ranjan
> >> <saiprakash.ranjan@codeaurora.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Rob,
> >>>
> >>> On 2019-10-24 01:19, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> > On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:32 PM Bjorn Andersson
> >>> > <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org> wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Sat 19 Oct 04:37 PDT 2019, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> > LLCC behaviour is controlled by the configuration data set
> >>> >> > in the llcc-qcom driver, add the same for SC7180 SoC.
> >>> >> > Also convert the existing bindings to json-schema and add
> >>> >> > the compatible for SC7180 SoC.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Thanks for the patches and thanks for the review Stephen. Series
> >>> >> applied
> >>> >
> >>> > And they break dt_binding_check. Please fix.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I did check this and think that the error log from dt_binding_check
> >>> is
> >>> not valid because it says cache-level is a required property [1], but
> >>> there is no such property in LLCC bindings.
> >>
> >> Then you should point out the issue and not just submit stuff ignoring
> >> it. It has to be resolved one way or another.
> >>
> >
> > I did not ignore it. When I ran the dt-binding check locally, it did
> > not
> > error out and just passed on [1] and it was my bad that I did not check
> > the entire build logs to see if llcc dt binding check had some warning
> > or
> > not. But this is the usual case where most of us don't look at the
> > entire
> > build logs to check if there is a warning or not. We notice if there is
> > an
> > immediate exit/fail in case of some warning/error. So it would be good
> > if
> > we fail the dt-binding check build if there is some warning/error or
> > atleast
> > provide some option to strict build to fail on warning, maybe there is
> > already
> > a flag to do this?
> >
> > After submitting the patch, I noticed this build failure on
> > patchwork.ozlabs.org and was waiting for your reply.
> >
> > [1] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/jNK8yfVkMG/
> >
> >> If you refer to the DT spec[1], cache-level is required. The schema is
> >> just enforcing that now. It's keying off the node name of
> >> 'cache-controller'.
> >>
> >
> > This is not L2 or L3 cache, this is a system cache (last level cache)
> > shared by
> > clients other than just CPU. So I don't know how do we specify
> > cache-level for
> > this, let me know if you have some pointers.
> >
>
> Any ideas on specifying the cache-level for system cache? Does
> dt-binding-check
> needs to be updated for this case?
>

I don't see how 'cache-level' fits here. Maybe the node name should be
changed to 'system-cache-controller' and then the schema checker can
skip it?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-11-14 17:49    [W:0.064 / U:6.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site