Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] ARM: dts: Add basic support for EcoNet EN7523
To:     Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
Cc:     devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        soc@kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        John Crispin <john@phrozen.org>, Felix Fietkau <nbd@nbd.name>
References: <20210730134552.853350-1-bert@biot.com>
 <20210730134552.853350-4-bert@biot.com>
 <20210730144627.GB19569@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
From:   Bert Vermeulen <bert@biot.com>
Message-ID: <d0ff051b-280c-4021-f4ee-7bfda5e356d3@biot.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 18:41:55 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210730144627.GB19569@C02TD0UTHF1T.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 7/30/21 4:46 PM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 03:45:50PM +0200, Bert Vermeulen wrote:
>> +	timer {
>> +		compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
> 
> This should be "arm,armv7-timer".
> 
>> +		interrupt-parent = <&gic>;
>> +		interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>> +			     <GIC_PPI 14 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>> +			     <GIC_PPI 11 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>,
>> +			     <GIC_PPI 10 (GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE(4) | IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW)>;
> 
> GICv3 doesn't have a cpumask in its PPI description, so the
> GIC_CPU_MASK_SIMPLE() bits should be removed.

Ok, will fix.

>> +		clock-frequency = <25000000>;
> 
> Please have your FW configure CNTFRQ on each CPU; the clock-frequency
> property in the DT is a workaround for broken FW, and it's *vastly*
> preferable for FW to configure this correctly (e.g. as it means VMs
> should "just work").

I've since got hold of the modified U-Boot that runs on my eval board, and 
indeed it doesn't set CNTFRQ. So the kernel does need this, for the moment.

I may get a chance to upstream support for this SoC in U-Boot, but I can't 
control what people are going to ship with their board. Is it ok to leave 
this in?


-- 
Bert Vermeulen
bert@biot.com