On Thu, 2014-11-13 at 03:21 -0600, Emil Medve wrote: > From: Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> > > Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> > Signed-off-by: Geoff Thorpe <geoff.tho...@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Hai-Ying Wang <haiying.w...@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Chunhe Lan <chunhe....@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Poonam Aggrwal <poonam.aggr...@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Emil Medve <emilian.me...@freescale.com> > Change-Id: If643fa5ba0a903aef8f5056a2c90ebecc995b760
I suspect these patches are changed quite a bit from Kumar's version... It's good to note changes after the listed author has stopped being involved, so they don't get the blame for anything they wouldn't have put in there. Why is the devicetree list not CCed? > --- > > Based on: > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/407034 > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/407037 > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/407035 > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/407036 > > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/b4qds.dtsi | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-post.dtsi | 2 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-pre.dtsi | 2 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4860si-post.dtsi | 129 ++++++- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4860si-pre.dtsi | 3 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4si-post.dtsi | 180 ++++++++- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1023si-post.dtsi | 61 ++- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p1023si-pre.dtsi | 2 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p2041si-post.dtsi | 9 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p3041si-post.dtsi | 9 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p4080si-post.dtsi | 9 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5020si-post.dtsi | 9 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/p5040si-post.dtsi | 9 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t1040si-post.dtsi | 128 ++++++- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi | 216 ++++++++++- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t4240si-post.dtsi | 568 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/kmcoge4.dts | 40 ++ > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/oca4080.dts | 40 ++ > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p1023rdb.dts | 43 ++- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p2041rdb.dts | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p3041ds.dts | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p4080ds.dts | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p5020ds.dts | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/p5040ds.dts | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/t104xqds.dtsi | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/t104xrdb.dtsi | 40 ++ > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/t208xqds.dtsi | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/t208xrdb.dtsi | 40 ++ > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/t4240qds.dts | 42 +- > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/t4240rdb.dts | 40 ++ > 30 files changed, 1930 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/b4qds.dtsi > b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/b4qds.dtsi > index 6188583..48c3fb4 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/b4qds.dtsi > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/b4qds.dtsi > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > /* > * B4420DS Device Tree Source > * > - * Copyright 2012 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > + * Copyright 2012 - 2014 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > * > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are > met: > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ > #address-cells = <2>; > #size-cells = <2>; > interrupt-parent = <&mpic>; > + reserved-ranges; I don't see reserved-ranges documented anywhere, and from the code in arch/powerpc I don't see how it has any effect when empty. > + reserved-memory { > + #address-cells = <2>; > + #size-cells = <2>; > + ranges; > + > + bman_fbpr: bman-fbpr { > + compatible = "fsl,bman-fbpr"; > + alloc-ranges = <0 0 0xffff 0xffffffff>; > + size = <0 0x1000000>; > + alignment = <0 0x1000000>; > + no-map; > + reusable; > + }; > + qman_fqd: qman-fqd { > + compatible = "fsl,qman-fqd"; > + alloc-ranges = <0 0 0xffff 0xffffffff>; > + size = <0 0x400000>; > + alignment = <0 0x400000>; > + no-map; > + reusable; > + }; > + qman_pfdr: qman-pfdr { > + compatible = "fsl,qman-pfdr"; > + alloc-ranges = <0 0 0xffff 0xffffffff>; > + size = <0 0x2000000>; > + alignment = <0 0x2000000>; > + no-map; > + reusable; > + }; > + }; no-map and reusable don't make sense together. How can the OS reuse the memory if it can't map it? no-map is burdensome (and I believe not yet implemented) on mpc85xx, where we want to use huge TLB entries to cover all of (low) memory. Is it really needed? What do we gain from specifying reusable here? How is it actually supposed to work? > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-post.dtsi > b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-post.dtsi > index 86161ae..0f56263 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-post.dtsi > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-post.dtsi > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > /* > * B4420 Silicon/SoC Device Tree Source (post include) > * > - * Copyright 2012 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > + * Copyright 2012 - 2014 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > * > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are > met: > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-pre.dtsi > b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-pre.dtsi > index 338af7e..f392949 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-pre.dtsi > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/b4420si-pre.dtsi > @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ > /* > * B4420 Silicon/SoC Device Tree Source (pre include) > * > - * Copyright 2012 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > + * Copyright 2012 - 2014 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. > * > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without > * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are > met: Why are you updating the copyright year on files you didn't change? -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
