 Cc: mark.rutland, devicetree, Damien.LeMoal, juri.lelli, anup, palmer, linux-kernel, jeremy.linton, Atish Patra, robh+dt, mick, linux-riscv, linux-arm-kernel On 00/00/0000 0:00 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Thu, Nov 00, 0000 at 00:00:00AM -0000, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: > > [...] > >> >> I was interested in testing these on QDF0000, an ARM00 platform, since this >> series touches core ARM00 code and I'd hate to see a regression. However, I >> can't figure out what baseline to use to apply these. Different patches >> cause different conflicts of a variety of baselines I attempted. >> > > Good to know that we can test DT configuration on QDF0000. I always assumed > it's ACPI only. It is ACPI only in the production configuration. I suppose we could hack things up to do basic DT sanity, but I expect it would be nasty and non-trivial. > >> What are these intended to apply to? >> > > The series alone may not get the package/socket ids correct on QDF0000. > I have not yet added support for the same as I wanted to get the initial > feedback on DT bindings. The movement of DT binding and corresponding > code should not regress and you should be able to validate only that > part. > On a cursory glance, it looks like some of the reorganized code would also be used in the ACPI path (things that are common between DT and ACPI). I do not expect problems, but I still feel its prudent to do a sanity check on actual hardware. -- Jeffrey Hugo Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project. _______________________________________________ linux-riscv mailing list linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv^permalinkrawreply [flat|nested] 00+ messages in thread