Re: [PATCH v2 06/11] dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 clint

[Conor Dooley]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 01:16:35PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:

> >> The SiFive CLINT has flexibility related limitations which makes it
> >> not useful for multi-socket and mult-die systems. The SiFive CLINT
> >> is also not useful for systems with AIA because with AIA M-mode has
> >> a new way of doing M-mode IPIs. Due to this reasons, the RISC-V
> >> ACLINT spec breaks down traditional SiFive CLINT into two separate
> >> devices namely mtimer and mswi. This allows platforms to implement
> >> only the required set of devices. The mtimer as defined by the ACLINT
> >> specifications also allows platforms to place mtime and mtimecmp
> >> registers at different locations.
> >>
> >> Refer, https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
> >>
> >> We need a separate DT bindings document for ACLINT MTIMER
> >> and ACLINT MSWI because these are separate devices. The
> >> Sophgo sg2042 SoC should add their implementation specific
> >> compatible strings in this document.
> >
> >If the spec isn't frozen, I'm not accepting a binding for the "generic"
> >version of it. Bindings for this specific implemtnation are okay.
> >For sure though, squeezing this into the sifive,plic binding isn't
> >appropriate.
> >
> 
> It seems I have missed a point. I wonder whether it is better to add a
> "aclint" binding firstly and then add sg2042 to it, or just use sg2042
> specific binding?

sg2042 specific, being frozen is a requirement for merging patches
related to RVI specifications.

> If use "aclint" binding, I wonder it is OK to add
> thead quirks as compatible specific properties, or left this to the SBI to
> handle? e.g. T-HEAD timer is not 64bit timer, and we should identify this.

The compatible string alone should be sufficient to identify the width
of the timer etc.

Thanks,
Conor.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature