[RFC PATCH 2/2] ARM: DT: kernel: DT cpu node bindings update

[Lorenzo Pieralisi]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:48:56AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 15 April 2013, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > -               "arm,cortex-a9"
> > -               "arm,cortex-a15"
> > -               "arm,arm1136"
> > -               "arm,arm1156"
> > -               "arm,arm1176"
> > -               "arm,arm11mpcore"
> > -               "faraday,fa526"
> > -               "intel,sa110"
> > -               "intel,sa1100"
> > -               "marvell,feroceon"
> > -               "marvell,mohawk"
> > -               "marvell,xsc3"
> > -               "marvell,xscale"
> 
> > +                           "arm,cortex-a9"
> > +                           "arm,cortex-a15"
> > +                           "arm,cortex-a57"
> > +                           "arm,arm1136"
> > +                           "arm,arm1156"
> > +                           "arm,arm1176"
> > +                           "arm,arm11mpcore"
> > +                           "faraday,fa526"
> > +                           "intel,sa110"
> > +                           "intel,sa1100"
> > +                           "marvell,feroceon"
> > +                           "marvell,mohawk"
> > +                           "marvell,xsc3"
> > +                           "marvell,xscale"
> 
> I see you are adding cortex-a57 here, but there are actually a couple
> of other cores that we could add here. It also makes sense to sort these
> alphanumerically I think, and move arm10 after arm9, as well as arm11
> before cortex.

Ok, I will do that.

> The ones that I find missing but actually used are:
> 
> 	"arm,cortex-a53"
> 	"arm,cortex-m0"
> 	"arm,cortex-m0+"
> 	"arm,cortex-m1"
> 	"arm,cortex-m3"
> 	"arm,cortex-m4"
> 	"arm,cortex-r4"
> 	"arm,cortex-r5"
> 	"arm,cortex-r7"
> 	"marvell,pj4"
> 	"qcom,scorpion"
> 	"qcom,krait"

Ok, I will add them, but we should probably enforce a policy regulating
how this binding should be updated in the future.

> 
> There are also a number of faraday cores that we don't support in
> Linux (fa626, fa626te, fa726te, ...), not sure if we should attempt to
> list them all here. The only one that is being worked on at the moment
> is based on fa526.

That's why it is the only one in the list, not sure what we should do either.

> There are also a number of 64 bit cores that other companies have announced,
> but I'm not sure if the names are final yet.

On a side note, as far as the in-kernel dts updates are concerned, how would
you like me to split them ? per-mach ? per-SoC ?

Thank you very much,
Lorenzo