Message ID | 1536103345-1919-1-git-send-email-vnkgutta@codeaurora.org |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Add EDAC driver for QCOM SoCs | expand |
On 9/5/2018 4:52 AM, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote: > +static const struct of_device_id qcom_llcc_edac_match_table[] = { > + { .compatible = "qcom,llcc-edac" }, > + { }, > +}; > + > Hi Venkata, Devicetree binding for llcc is updated, but what about this compatible? Regards, Sai
On 2018-09-06 05:38, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > On 9/5/2018 4:52 AM, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote: >> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_llcc_edac_match_table[] = { >> + { .compatible = "qcom,llcc-edac" }, >> + { }, >> +}; >> + >> > Hi Venkata, > > Devicetree binding for llcc is updated, but what about this compatible? Does it need documentation too? I was not sure if I should add documentation for this or not! > > Regards, > Sai
On 9/7/2018 4:01 AM, vnkgutta@codeaurora.org wrote: > On 2018-09-06 05:38, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >> On 9/5/2018 4:52 AM, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote: >>> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_llcc_edac_match_table[] = { >>> + { .compatible = "qcom,llcc-edac" }, >>> + { }, >>> +}; >>> + >>> >> Hi Venkata, >> >> Devicetree binding for llcc is updated, but what about this compatible? > > Does it need documentation too? I was not sure if I should add > documentation for this or not! > It does not require a separate binding, what I meant was to add this compatible in the llcc binding itself, maybe as a subnode if it is correct.
On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 04:22:24PM -0700, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote: > From: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi@codeaurora.org> > > Add error reporting driver for Single Bit Errors (SBEs) and Double Bit > Errors (DBEs). As of now, this driver supports error reporting for > Last Level Cache Controller (LLCC) of Tag RAM and Data RAM. Interrupts > are triggered when the errors happen in the cache, the driver handles > those interrupts and dumps the syndrome registers. > > Signed-off-by: Channagoud Kadabi <ckadabi@codeaurora.org> > Signed-off-by: Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta <vnkgutta@codeaurora.org> > Co-developed-by: Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta <vnkgutta@codeaurora.org> > --- > MAINTAINERS | 8 + > drivers/edac/Kconfig | 14 ++ > drivers/edac/Makefile | 1 + > drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c | 420 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/soc/qcom/llcc-qcom.h | 24 +++ > 5 files changed, 467 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 drivers/edac/qcom_edac.c EDAC bits look ok now, feel free to carry it through the qualcomm tree: Acked-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
On 2018-09-06 22:02, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: > On 9/7/2018 4:01 AM, vnkgutta@codeaurora.org wrote: >> On 2018-09-06 05:38, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >>> On 9/5/2018 4:52 AM, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote: >>>> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_llcc_edac_match_table[] = { >>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,llcc-edac" }, >>>> + { }, >>>> +}; >>>> + >>>> >>> Hi Venkata, >>> >>> Devicetree binding for llcc is updated, but what about this >>> compatible? >> >> Does it need documentation too? I was not sure if I should add >> documentation for this or not! >> > > It does not require a separate binding, what I meant was to add this > compatible in the llcc binding itself, maybe as a subnode if it is > correct. Hi, We aren't really using this of_device_id structure, as this driver is being registered from LLCC through platform_register_device_data(...). This structure initialization is just dead code as this driver won't be probed based on the DT entries. Hence removing this compatible property and the corresponding struct in the next patchset. So, this doesn't need an extra binding/documentation.
On 9/11/2018 4:15 AM, vnkgutta@codeaurora.org wrote: > On 2018-09-06 22:02, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >> On 9/7/2018 4:01 AM, vnkgutta@codeaurora.org wrote: >>> On 2018-09-06 05:38, Sai Prakash Ranjan wrote: >>>> On 9/5/2018 4:52 AM, Venkata Narendra Kumar Gutta wrote: >>>>> +static const struct of_device_id qcom_llcc_edac_match_table[] = { >>>>> + { .compatible = "qcom,llcc-edac" }, >>>>> + { }, >>>>> +}; >>>>> + >>>>> >>>> Hi Venkata, >>>> >>>> Devicetree binding for llcc is updated, but what about this compatible? >>> >>> Does it need documentation too? I was not sure if I should add >>> documentation for this or not! >>> >> >> It does not require a separate binding, what I meant was to add this >> compatible in the llcc binding itself, maybe as a subnode if it is >> correct. > > Hi, > > We aren't really using this of_device_id structure, as this driver is > being registered from LLCC through > platform_register_device_data(...). This structure initialization is > just dead code as this driver won't be probed based on the DT entries. > > Hence removing this compatible property and the corresponding struct in > the next patchset. > > So, this doesn't need an extra binding/documentation. Ok. Now that you have removed the compatible, it should be fine. Thanks