Re: [PATCH v4 1/2] dt-bindings: timer: thead,c900-aclint-mtimer: separate mtime and mtimecmp regs

[Inochi Amaoto]

>
>On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 04:51:32PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 3:27 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 03:01:24PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 12:39 PM Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
>>>>> be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
>>>>> and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
>>>>> separated registers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
>>>>> has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
>>>>> should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
>>>>> regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.
>>>>>
>>>>> To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
>>>>> regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
>>>>> for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
>>>>> Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
>>>>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
>>>>
>>>> The ratified Priv v1.12 specification defines platform specific M-mode timer
>>>> registers without defining any layout of mtime and mtimecmp registers.
>>>> (Refer, "3.2.1 Machine Timer Registers (mtime and mtimecmp)")
>>>>
>>>> The "thead,c900-aclint-mtimer" can be thought of as is one possible
>>>> implementation of "riscv,mtimer" defined by the Priv v1.12 specificaiton.
>>>>
>>>> If it is not too late then I suggest making this binding into generic
>>>> "riscv,mtimer" binding.
>>>
>>> We could definitely reorganise things, it's not too late for that as
>>> implementation specific compatibles would be needed regardless, so
>>> software that would've matched on those will continue to do so.
>>>
>>> That said, does this platform actually implement the 1.12 priv spec if
>>> there is no mtime register? The section you reference says:
>>> "Platforms provide a real-time counter, exposed as a memory-mapped
>>> machine-mode read-write register, mtime." It seems to me like this
>>> hardware is not suitable for a generic "riscv,mtimer" fallback.
>>
>> Yes, the T-Head mtimer does not implement both mtime and mtimecmp
>> so technically it only implements a portion of the ratified RISC-V mtimer
>> chapter.
>>
>>>
>>> Am I missing something there Anup?
>>>
>>> It doesn't even implement the draft aclint spec, given that that says:
>>> "The MTIMER device provides machine-level timer functionality for a set
>>> of HARTs on a RISC-V platform. It has a single fixed-frequency monotonic
>>> time counter (MTIME) register and a time compare register (MTIMECMP) for
>>> each HART connected to the MTIMER device."
>>>
>>> But I already said no to having a generic, "riscv" prefixed, compatible
>>> for that, given it is in draft form.
>>
>> I am not suggesting T-Head timer implements aclint spec. Also,
>> since aclint spec is in draft state it is out of the question.
>
>I did not intend to imply that you were suggesting that there should be
>one. I was just trying to clarify that I was not trying to bring back
>the topic of a generic aclint binding applying here.
>
>> My suggestion is to treat "3.2.1 Machine Timer Registers (mtime
>> and mtimecmp)" as RISC-V mtimer defined by the RISC-V privileged
>> specification and define "riscv" prefixed DT binding for this.
>
>I'm not against a binding for that at all.
>
>> This binding defines two possible values for "reg" property:
>> 1) contains two items: a) mtime register address and,
>>      b) base address of mtimecmp registers
>> 2) contain one item: a) base address of mtimecmp registers
>>
>> The t-head mtimer seems to implement #2 whereas the RISC-V
>> mtimer (Priv spec) aligns with #1.
>>
>> If we want to keep this DT binding t-head specific then
>> we should remove option #1 (above) from this DT binding
>
>This part is already the conclusion of one of the other "branches" of
>this thread and is (AFAIU) Inochi's plan for the next version.
>

Yes, I have already made a new version for this.
But in fact, that is just the V3 version of this patch. This is why now I
still wait for some advice.

The V3 version is just T-HEAD specific:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953B8AC5CB8F8165A09D118BBB7A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

>> and add separate "riscv" prefixed DT binding for RISC-V mtimer.
>
>Do you know of any users for a "riscv,mtimer" binding that are not
>covered by existing bindings for the clint?
>
>Cheers,
>Conor.
>
>