On Thu, 2020-04-16 at 21:43 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Chris Packham <chris.pack...@alliedtelesis.co.nz> writes:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > On Wed, 2020-03-25 at 16:18 +1300, Chris Packham wrote:
> > > If {i,d}-cache-block-size is set and {i,d}-cache-line-size is
> > > not,
> > > use
> > > the block-size value for both. Per the devicetree spec cache-
> > > line-
> > > size
> > > is only needed if it differs from the block size.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.pack...@alliedtelesis.co.nz>
> > > ---
> > > It looks as though the bsizep = lsizep is not required per the
> > > spec
> > > but it's
> > > probably safer to retain it.
> > >
> > > Changes in v2:
> > > - Scott pointed out that u-boot should be filling in the cache
> > > properties
> > > (which it does). But it does not specify a cache-line-size
> > > because
> > > it
> > > provides a cache-block-size and the spec says you don't have to
> > > if
> > > they are
> > > the same. So the error is in the parsing not in the devicetree
> > > itself.
> > >
> >
> > Ping? This thread went kind of quiet.
>
> I replied in the other thread:
>
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/87369xx99u....@mpe.ellerman.id.au/
>
> But then the merge window happened which is a busy time.
>
Yeah I figured that was the case.
> What I'd really like is a v3 that incorporates the info I wrote in
> the
> other thread and a Fixes tag.
>
> If you feel like doing that, that would be great. Otherwise I'll do
> it
> tomorrow.
I'll rebase against Linus's tree and have a go a adding some more words
to the commit message.
>
> cheers
