Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: arm,gic: Fix binding example for a virt-capable GIC

From: [email-masked] (Olof Johansson)
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2017 14:51:29 -0800

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 02:30:01PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 03:56:13PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > The joys of copy/paste: the example of a virtualization capable GIC
> > in the DT binding was wrong, and propagated to dozens of platforms.
> > By having a GICC region that is only 4kB (instead of 8kB), we
> > end-up not being able to access the GICC_DIR register which is on
> > the second page.
> > 
> > Oh well. Let's fix the source of the crap before tackling individual
> > offenders. While we're at it, also fix the compatibility string to
> > mention "arm,gic-400", which is the name of the actual implementation
> > of the GICv2 spec.
> 
> "While we're at it", code for should be in a separate patch. :) I 
> wouldn't really care here, but you are not fixing anything...
> 
> > 
> > Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <[email-masked]>
> > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email-masked]>
> > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email-masked]>
> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt | 4 ++--
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > index 5393e2a..a3d51ed 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/arm,gic.txt
> > @@ -107,11 +107,11 @@ Required properties:
> >  Example:
> >  
> >  	interrupt-controller at 2c001000 {
> > -		compatible = "arm,cortex-a15-gic";
> > +		compatible = "arm,gic-400";
> 
> Which one is correct really depends on the platform. The A15 can have an 
> internal or external (gic-400) GIC. The former string is correct for an 
> A15 with an internal GIC. One such platform is Calxeda midway.
> 
> Arguably, we should not have arm,gic-400 by itself, but have an SoC 
> specific compatible in case it was integrated in interesting ways.

Good point (and thanks for bringing it up).

Marc, based on this; want to back the above out so we can apply the rest for
now, while you battle on the compatible details? :)

-Olof