linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: sifive: describe sifive-blocks versioning

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.9999.1812070624180.16511@viisi.sifive.com>
Date:   Fri, 7 Dec 2018 06:31:33 -0800 (PST)
From:   Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
cc:     Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>,
        Megan Wachs <megan@...ive.com>,
        Wesley Terpstra <wesley@...ive.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: sifive: describe sifive-blocks versioning


On Fri, 7 Dec 2018, Rob Herring wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:46 PM Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2018, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2018 at 05:06:56PM -0800, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > >
> > > >  .../sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt    | 38 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 38 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt
> > >
> > > Use the path that was suggested.
> >
> > Could you remind me which one that is?
> 
> In this thread: bindings/riscv/sifive/

SiFive also produces ARM-based SoCs.  Some of those ARM SoCs may use these 
IP blocks from sifive-blocks as well.  As far as I know, there's nothing 
RISC-V-specific about most of these IP blocks.  (As an example, there's 
nothing CPU architecture-specific about a UART.)

I'm fine with putting these bindings under bindings/riscv/, if that's 
where you need them to go.  But I'd like to understand the rationale 
better - could you describe that?

thanks,

- Paul