RE: [PATCH v2 0/8] Add support for StarFive VisionFive 2 Lite board

[Hal Feng]

> On 18.11.25 05:55, E Shattow wrote:
> On 11/16/25 22:54, Hal Feng wrote:
> >> On 16.11.25 00:29, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> >> Quoting E Shattow (2025-11-13 16:16:12)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 11/13/25 02:42, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> >>>> Quoting Hal Feng (2025-11-13 04:42:05)
> >>>>>> On 12.11.25 21:54, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> >>>>>> Quoting Hal Feng (2025-11-07 10:55:22)
> >>>>>>> VisionFive 2 Lite is a mini SBC based on the StarFive JH7110S
> >>>>>>> industrial SoC which can run at -40~85 degrees centigrade and up
> >>>>>>> to 1.25GHz.
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>>> Currently the JH7110 device trees are layed out like this, with a
> >>>>>> nice separation between the SoC description and board descriptions:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jh7110.dtsi               # JH7110 SoC description
> >>>>>> |- jh7110-common.dtsi     # Peripherals common to all JH7110 boards
> >>>>>>    |- jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi # Peripherals common to
> >>>>>> VF2
> >> boards
> >>>>>>    |  |- <VF2 boards>     # Final VF2 board descriptions
> >>>>>>    |- jh7110-milkv-marscm.dtsi # Peripherals common to Mars CM
> >> boards
> >>>>>>    |  |- <Mars CM boards> # Final Mars CM board descriptions
> >>>>>>    |- <other boards>      # Other JH7110 board descriptions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With this series it moves to
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jh711x.dtsi
> >>>>>> |- jh711x-common.dtsi
> >>>>>>    |- jh7110-common.dtsi
> >>>>>>    |  |- <jh7110 boards>
> >>>>>>    |- jh7110s-common.dtsi
> >>>>>>       |- <jh7110s boards>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ..which I can't even give clear labels like above. In other words
> >>>>>> when new patches are sent in it would not be easy to explain
> >>>>>> exactly where each change should go and why.
> >>>>>> I'm also worried that you'll find that more of the peripherals on
> >>>>>> the JH7110S need special handling and a new jh7110s-...
> >>>>>> compatible string. Then I guess they'll need to jump from
> >>>>>> jh7110x.dtsi two levels down to jh7110{,s}- common.dtsi which
> >>>>>> then both describe SoC
> >> and board properties.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you're serious about calling this a new SoC then I'd expect
> >>>>>> something more like this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> jh711x.dtsi                  # Peripherals common to both SoCs
> >>>>>> |- jh7110.dtsi               # JH7110 SoC description
> >>>>>> |  |- jh7110-common.dtsi     # Peripherals common to all JH7110
> boards
> >>>>>> |     |- jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi # Peripherals common
> >>>>>> |to VF2
> >> boards
> >>>>>> |     |  |- <VF2 boards>     # Final VF2 board descriptions
> >>>>>> |     |- jh7110-milkv-marscm.dtsi # Peripherals common to Mars CM
> >> boards
> >>>>>> |     |  |- <Mars CM boards> # Final Mars CM board descriptions
> >>>>>> |     |- <other boards>      # Other JH7110 board descriptions
> >>>>>> |- jh7110s.dtsi              # JH7110S SoC description
> >>>>>>    |- jh7110s-common.dtsi    # Peripherals common to all JH7110S
> >> boards
> >>>>>>       |- <JH7110S boards>    # Final JH7110S board descriptions
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I know this will mean some duplication in jh7110{,s}-common.dtsi,
> >>>>>> but I would prefer that to not having a clear explanation of what
> >>>>>> each file
> >> describes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you think this layout could work for you?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, it is clearer for developers and maintainers.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Considering Conor's suggestion, what about:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jh7110.dtsi               # JH7110 SoC description
> >>>>> |- jh7110-common.dtsi     # Peripherals common to all JH7110 boards
> >>>>>    |- jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi # Peripherals common to VF2
> boards
> >>>>>    |  |- <VF2 boards>     # Final VF2 board descriptions
> >>>>>    |- jh7110-milkv-marscm.dtsi # Peripherals common to Mars CM
> boards
> >>>>>    |  |- <Mars CM boards> # Final Mars CM board descriptions
> >>>>>    |- <other boards>      # Other JH7110 board descriptions
> >>>>> |- <JH7110S boards>
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> JH-7110 and JH-7110I reference docs are listed (not any JH-7110S) at:
> >>> https://doc-en.rvspace.org/Doc_Center/datasheet_0.html
> >>>
> >>> Does the JH-7110I use the OPP table for JH-7110 or JH-7110S?
> >>>
> >>>>> Move the opp table from jh7110.dtsi to jh7110-common.dtsi.
> >>>>> Remove jh7110s-common.dtsi, because only one board uses JH7110S
> >> now.
> >>>>
> >>>> This patchset adds 2 different boards. Has this changed?
> >>>>
> >>>> Also this would mean that you're not using the starfive,jh7110s
> >>>> compatible or any other starfive,jh7110s-.. compatible strings, so
> >>>> effectively you're not treating it as a new chip, but just a board
> >>>> that needs a
> >> different opp table.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see now that the opp table is effectively the only difference
> >>>> between the two chips in this patchset, so if that's closer to
> >>>> reality then what you suggest is fine with me.
> >>>>
> >>>> /Emil
> >>>
> >>> Are we now re-visiting Hal's suggestion then (during code review for
> >>> Milk-V Mars CM and Mars CM Lite) to split out the OPP tables and
> >>> make them per-board, as before introduction of the StarFive
> >>> VisionFive 2 Lite
> >>> board(s) ?
> >>>
> >>> Can we then do as from where we are now before this series:
> >>>
> >>> - Move "the JH-7110" OPP table into jh7110-common-opp-1500.dtsi
> >>>
> >>> - Each board jh7110-{deepcomputing,milkv,pine64,starfive}*.dts
> >>> includes said OPP dtsi file.
> >>>
> >>> and for this series:
> >>>
> >>> - Drop the adding of a new compatible
> >>>
> >>> - Add "the JH-7110S" OPP table into jh7110-common-opp-1250.dtsi
> >>>
> >>> - Use existing jh7110-* prefix for "JH-7110S" board dtsi and dts,
> >>> include jh7110-common.dtsi as usual, and include
> >>> jh7110-common-opp-1250.dtsi
> >>>
> >>> The exact filename pattern for the OPP tables I suggest here are
> >>> approximations, however that idea is my suggestion if we're just
> >>> doing a breakout of the tables and not a new compatible.
> >>>
> >>> I am positive on having the 1250MHz OPP tables split out into dtsi
> >>> instead of stuffing them into the VisionFive 2 Lite common dtsi.
> >>> That's all it is?
> >>
> >> I think this suggestion makes sense if we're 100% sure the JH7110 and
> >> JH7110S will only ever differ by the opp table. If there is any
> >> chance we'll need to add different compatible string for some
> >> peripheral then I think Hal's suggestion will be easier untangle.
> >> We'll even be able to do it without touching all the board dts files once
> again.
> >>
> >> I'm interested to hear Hal's opinion on this. Hopefully they'll have
> >> more details on the two version of the JH7110.
> >
> > Here are the differences between JH7110 and JH7110S:
> > JH7110 supports 0~70 degrees centigrade and up to 1.5GHz.
> > JH7110S supports -40~85 degrees centigrade and up to 1.25GHz.
> >
> > I prefer to keep "starfive,jh7110s" compatible, because "JH7110S" is
> > the chip name in StarFive documents and the name printed on the chip.
> > It is easier for the users to know which chip they are using and select the
> correct device tree.
> >
> > And patch [1] and [2] had accepted the "starfive,jh7110s" compatible.
> > [1]
> > https://lore.kernel.org/all/jurnfpufll4twv2hfp2dv6qk6d3gr7gfmek5czigb5
> > bcon636q@opb6hrdb424p/ [2]
> >
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAAhSdy2Jr+EoW9AZooRDa12Kx9MSSaBaDXbJUo
> Vym
> > 1qTt3r0-Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Hal
> 
> Hal,
> 
> OpenSBI development can accept a revert for that 1-liner of code if needed,
> and anyways that new compatible was not tagged in any release yet while also
> being moot because if you do use it somewhere else and OpenSBI keeps this
> around it has no effect on upstream Linux using the compatible for JH7110.
> 
> Devicetree in Linux describes hardware not related to the feelings of customers
> so that should not be a concern here.
> 
> The data given for JH7110 and JH7110S does not make sense from what can
> be found in published technical documentation. The technical documentation
> is however lacking a chart for JH7110 from which to derive any useful
> comment here.
> 
> All,
> 
> I repeat that the suggestion was made months ago (by Hal) to split out the
> OPP tables per-board from the period of time when I was complaining about
> 1.5GHz JH-7110 operation pushing TDP into over-temperature thermal limit
> on Milk-V Mars CM SoM.
> 
> Whether or not JH7110S is a new compatible should follow precedence in
> Linux development. JH-7110S is evidently the same tape-out as JH-7110 and
> however you deal with that in Linux is the appropriate way to deal with that
> here. Selection of OPP table for correct operation will be determined by
> bootloader, where, it is demonstrated by patch series sent to U-Boot
> upstream to be selected ** per-board ** based on EEPROM content as if it
> was any other JH-7110 board deciding dts based on EEPROM content. Given
> that it is the same tape-out I do not find a valid justification for a new
> compatible in the stack of adjacent software besides going along with some
> kind of marketing-driven answer about whether or not this is a new SoC.
> 
> What I care about now is that the VisionFive 2 Lite series is in good enough
> shape and there's a possibility to act on this months-old suggestion to split out
> the OPP tables which as we have confirmed the JH7110S is the same SoC as
> JH7110 it makes a lot of sense to do.
> 
> How is it supposed to work for binned silicon in Linux?

Hi, Conor,  Emil, 

What do you think about this? Hope to hear from you.

Best regards,
Hal