On 06/01/2011 01:40 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Rob Herring<[email protected]> wrote:
From: Rob Herring<[email protected]>
This adds probing for pl310 cache controller via device tree. An example
binding looks like this:
L2: l2-cache {
compatible = "arm,pl310-cache", "cache";
"cache" is too generic to be useful. "arm,pl2x0-cache" would be a more
meaningful fallback, I think?
I agree. This is what ePAPR says should be present for caches along with
a more specific string.
Based on the prior discussion on pmu naming, it should be the specific
model. There is no such thing as a pl2x0. The models of L2 controllers
the cache-l2x0.c code supports are:
PL310
L220
L210
And my compatible strings reflect that.
(Same comment as for 1/3: The bindings need to be documented. Same
applies to 2/3, obviousy).
Will do.
Rob
_______________________________________________
devicetree-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
