Message ID | 20170201231624.28843-1-chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Not Applicable |
Headers | show |
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:16:24PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: > The l2-cache controller on the T2080 SoC has similar capabilities to the > others already supported by the mpc85xx_edac driver. Add it to the list > of compatible devices. > > Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> > Acked-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jth@kernel.org> > --- > This is a resend of a patch that got an ack[1] but didn't seem to get > picked up. > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-edac&m=148042072225488&w=2 > > Changes since v1: > - Collect ack from Johannes. Whoops, my bad. Sorry about that. > arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi | 1 + > drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c | 1 + > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi > index c744569a20e1..a97296c64eb2 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi > +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi > @@ -678,5 +678,6 @@ > compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller"; > reg = <0xc20000 0x40000>; > next-level-cache = <&cpc>; > + interrupts = <16 2 1 9>; > }; > }; > diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c > index 8f66cbed70b7..67f7bc3fe5b3 100644 > --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c > +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c > @@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = { > { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller", }, > { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller", }, > { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller", }, > + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, WARNING: DT compatible string "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller" appears un-documented -- check ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ #58: FILE: drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c:632: + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, What is checkpatch.pl trying to tell me here?
On 02/02/17 12:28, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 12:16:24PM +1300, Chris Packham wrote: >> The l2-cache controller on the T2080 SoC has similar capabilities to the >> others already supported by the mpc85xx_edac driver. Add it to the list >> of compatible devices. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Packham <chris.packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> >> Acked-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jth@kernel.org> >> --- >> This is a resend of a patch that got an ack[1] but didn't seem to get >> picked up. >> >> [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-edac&m=148042072225488&w=2 >> >> Changes since v1: >> - Collect ack from Johannes. > > Whoops, my bad. Sorry about that. > >> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi | 1 + >> drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi >> index c744569a20e1..a97296c64eb2 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi >> @@ -678,5 +678,6 @@ >> compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller"; >> reg = <0xc20000 0x40000>; >> next-level-cache = <&cpc>; >> + interrupts = <16 2 1 9>; >> }; >> }; >> diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c >> index 8f66cbed70b7..67f7bc3fe5b3 100644 >> --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c >> +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c >> @@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = { >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller", }, >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller", }, >> { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller", }, >> + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, > > WARNING: DT compatible string "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller" appears un-documented -- check ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ > #58: FILE: drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c:632: > + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, > > What is checkpatch.pl trying to tell me here? > checpkatch.pl is confused by Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/l2cache.txt which says - compatible : Should include "fsl,chip-l2-cache-controller" and "cache" where chip is the processor (bsc9132, npc8572 etc.) So none of the fsl cache controllers pass the checkpatch.pl test.
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:46:23PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: > >> diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c > >> index 8f66cbed70b7..67f7bc3fe5b3 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c > >> +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c > >> @@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = { > >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller", }, > >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller", }, > >> { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller", }, > >> + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, > > > > WARNING: DT compatible string "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller" appears un-documented -- check ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ > > #58: FILE: drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c:632: > > + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, > > > > What is checkpatch.pl trying to tell me here? > > > > checpkatch.pl is confused by > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/l2cache.txt which says > > - compatible : Should include "fsl,chip-l2-cache-controller" and "cache" > where chip is the processor (bsc9132, npc8572 etc.) > > So none of the fsl cache controllers pass the checkpatch.pl test. Hmm, so others do list those names explicitly. For example: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sunxi-pinctrl.txt And the patch that added that check to cp: bff5da433525 ("checkpatch: add DT compatible string documentation checks") is basically to enforce explicit compatible names. So I'd like to have an ACK from a PPC maintainer here first before I apply this.
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> writes: > On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 11:46:23PM +0000, Chris Packham wrote: >> >> diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c >> >> index 8f66cbed70b7..67f7bc3fe5b3 100644 >> >> --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c >> >> +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c >> >> @@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = { >> >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller", }, >> >> { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller", }, >> >> { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller", }, >> >> + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, >> > >> > WARNING: DT compatible string "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller" appears un-documented -- check ./Documentation/devicetree/bindings/ >> > #58: FILE: drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c:632: >> > + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, >> > >> > What is checkpatch.pl trying to tell me here? >> > >> >> checpkatch.pl is confused by >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/powerpc/fsl/l2cache.txt which says >> >> - compatible : Should include "fsl,chip-l2-cache-controller" and "cache" >> where chip is the processor (bsc9132, npc8572 etc.) >> >> So none of the fsl cache controllers pass the checkpatch.pl test. > > Hmm, so others do list those names explicitly. For example: > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pinctrl/allwinner,sunxi-pinctrl.txt > > And the patch that added that check to cp: > > bff5da433525 ("checkpatch: add DT compatible string documentation checks") > > is basically to enforce explicit compatible names. > > So I'd like to have an ACK from a PPC maintainer here first before I > apply this. It's fine with me: Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Chris if you want to send a patch to add the compatible string to the l2cache.txt I would merge that, but honestly it doesn't achieve much other than possibly catching a typo in the compatible name. cheers
On 03/02/17 12:55, Michael Ellerman wrote: > Chris if you want to send a patch to add the compatible string to the > l2cache.txt I would merge that, but honestly it doesn't achieve much > other than possibly catching a typo in the compatible name. I think catching a typo might be worthwhile. It's 5 minutes work for me to grep/sed through the code to find existing compatible strings and update the document. Which might save someone else a lot of time debugging only to find out they've transposed some digits in the dts. I'll whip something up and send it out shortly.
Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@alliedtelesis.co.nz> writes: > On 03/02/17 12:55, Michael Ellerman wrote: >> Chris if you want to send a patch to add the compatible string to the >> l2cache.txt I would merge that, but honestly it doesn't achieve much >> other than possibly catching a typo in the compatible name. > > I think catching a typo might be worthwhile. It's 5 minutes work for me > to grep/sed through the code to find existing compatible strings and > update the document. Which might save someone else a lot of time > debugging only to find out they've transposed some digits in the dts. > > I'll whip something up and send it out shortly. Thanks. cheers
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:55:33AM +1100, Michael Ellerman wrote: > > So I'd like to have an ACK from a PPC maintainer here first before I > > apply this. > > It's fine with me: > > Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Applied, thanks guys.
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi index c744569a20e1..a97296c64eb2 100644 --- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi +++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/fsl/t2081si-post.dtsi @@ -678,5 +678,6 @@ compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller"; reg = <0xc20000 0x40000>; next-level-cache = <&cpc>; + interrupts = <16 2 1 9>; }; }; diff --git a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c index 8f66cbed70b7..67f7bc3fe5b3 100644 --- a/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c +++ b/drivers/edac/mpc85xx_edac.c @@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match[] = { { .compatible = "fsl,p1020-l2-cache-controller", }, { .compatible = "fsl,p1021-l2-cache-controller", }, { .compatible = "fsl,p2020-l2-cache-controller", }, + { .compatible = "fsl,t2080-l2-cache-controller", }, {}, }; MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, mpc85xx_l2_err_of_match);