Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20190911183632.4317-1-krzk@kernel.org> <CAK8P3a2pBV+fh0rHitZ30Zz61QNRLfNSD-nhnzq4ZtxSh66F1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJKOXPcOSvc2DfoN+7Tca=t5dSm3RcKqmm06AfR0PAVBeY=GvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190929175134.fsieffurfdiqhpj2@localhost> <20190930080217.GA23709@pi3>
In-Reply-To: <20190930080217.GA23709@pi3>
From:   Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
Date:   Mon, 30 Sep 2019 10:35:01 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOesGMi2w9vci+kU=WFHJJBqgz9BM5RJBzqwwrR7k=275w4Tyg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/2] arm64: dts: exynos: Pull for v5.4
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Cc:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, arm-soc <arm@kernel.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 1:02 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2019 at 10:51:34AM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 08:32:47AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 23:07, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:36 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately the patches were applied right after closing the linux-next.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Krzysztof,
> > > >
> > > > I took a look at these and am not convinced this is right:
> > > >
> > > > > 1. Fix boot of Exynos7 due to wrong address/size of memory node,
> > > >
> > > > The current state is clearly broken and a fix is needed, but
> > > > I'm not sure this is the right fix. Why do you have 32-bit physical
> > > > addressing on a 64-bit chip? I looked at commit ef72171b3621
> > > > that introduced it, and it seems it would be better to just
> > > > revert back to 64-bit addresses.
> > >
> > > We discussed with Marek Szyprowski that either we can go back to
> > > 64-bit addressing or stick to 32. There are not known boards with more
> > > than 4 GB of RAM so from this point of view the choice was irrelevant.
> > > At the end of discussion I mentioned to stick with other arm64 boards
> > > (although not all), so revert to have 64 bit address... but Marek
> > > chosen differently. Since you ask, let's go back with revert.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Move GPU under /soc node,
> > > >
> > > > No problem
> > > >
> > > > > 3. Minor cleanup of #address-cells.
> > > >
> > > > IIRC, an interrupt-controller is required to have a #address-cells
> > > > property, even if that is normally zero. I don't remember the
> > > > details, but the gic binding lists it as mandatory, and I think
> > > > the PCI interrupt-map relies on it. I would just drop this patch.
> > >
> > > Indeed, binding requires both address and size cells. I'll drop it.
> >
> > Looking through the history of pending material, I didn't see a new pull for
> > this material. Just checking in to see if there's something we missed?
>
> No, it's me who forgot to resend. I was sure that I rebased the branch
> and created new pull request. However it seems I did not. Let's keep it
> for next merge window... v5.4-rc should be any minute, I guess?

Yeah, we're too late for this merge window but feel free to send it
for next release.


-Olof