Re: [PATCHv2 2/5] Documentation: dt: edac: Add Stratix10 Peripheral bindings

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 2:28 PM Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 3/12/19 11:04 AM, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:27:22AM -0600, thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >> From: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Add peripheral bindings for Stratix10 EDAC to capture
> >> the differences between the ARM64 and ARM32 architecture.
> >
> > What's the difference? Sounds like 2 different chips, so Stratix10 or
> > s10 is not specific enough perhaps.
> >
>
> Yes, our ARM32 chips are the Cyclone5 and Arria10. The Stratix10 is
> ARM64 and I'm using S10 as shorthand for the Stratix10.

So it's really just differences between one chip and another... ARM32
vs 64 really has nothing to do with that.

>
> The ECC blocks are very similar between Arria10 and Stratix10 but there
> are differences as a result of the ARM32 vs ARM64 architecture
> differences. The major difference is how Double Bit Errors are handled.
> In the ARM32, the DBE is mapped to an IRQ. On ARM64, the DBE is mapped
> to a SError.

Okay, I guess that's why arm64 matters...

> I had started out re-using the Arria10 bindings for Stratix10 since they
> were very similar. Dinh pointed out that having separate bindings for
> ARM64 would allow separation between the architectures and make future
> changes easier.
>
> I'm unclear on the comment about being specific enough. Are you
> suggesting that I use arm64 in the binding name instead of s10? Or is
> there a better naming convention I should follow?

NM, it was me that was confused. It was that Stratix10 was already
mentioned in the doc that confused me.

Rob