Message-ID: <20200528231803.GA847232@bogus>
Date:   Thu, 28 May 2020 17:18:03 -0600
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>
Cc:     seanga2@...il.com, anup@...infault.org,
        Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@....com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        aou@...s.berkeley.edu, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@....com>,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] dt-bindings: timer: Add CLINT bindings

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 05:32:30PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2020 23:29:36 PDT (-0700), seanga2@...il.com wrote:
> > On 5/22/20 1:54 AM, Anup Patel wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 1:35 AM Sean Anderson <seanga2@...il.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > On 5/21/20 9:45 AM, Anup Patel wrote:
> > > > > +Required properties:
> > > > > +- compatible : "sifive,clint-1.0.0" and a string identifying the actual
> > > > > +  detailed implementation in case that specific bugs need to be worked around.
> > > > 
> > > > Should the "riscv,clint0" compatible string be documented here? This
> > > 
> > > Yes, I forgot to add this compatible string. I will add in v2.
> > > 
> > > > peripheral is not really specific to sifive, as it is present in most
> > > > rocket-chip cores.
> > > 
> > > I agree that CLINT is present in a lot of non-SiFive RISC-V SOCs and
> > > FPGAs but this IP is only documented as part of SiFive FU540 SOC.
> > > (Refer, https://static.dev.sifive.com/FU540-C000-v1.0.pdf)
> > > 
> > > The RISC-V foundation should host the CLINT spec independently
> > > under https://github.com/riscv and make CLINT spec totally open.
> > > 
> > > For now, I have documented it just like PLIC DT bindings found at:
> > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.txt
> > 
> > The PLIC seems to have its own RISC-V-sponsored documentation [1] which
> > was split off from the older privileged specs. By your logic above,
> > should it be renamed to riscv,plic0.txt (with a corresponding change in
> > the documented compatible strings)?
> > 
> > [1] https://github.com/riscv/riscv-plic-spec
> 
> Let's propose tagging that PLIC spec as v1.0.0 in the platform spec group, but
> I don't see a reason why that wouldn't be viable.  Assuming that's all OK, we
> can start calling this a RISC-V PLIC (in addition to a SiFive PLIC, as they'll
> be compatible).
> 
> > > 
> > > If RISC-V maintainers agree then I will document it as "RISC-V CLINT".
> > > 
> > > @Palmer ?? @Paul ??
> 
> The CLINT is a SiFive spec.  It has open source RTL so it's been implemented in
> other designs, but it's not a RISC-V spec.  The CLIC, which is a superset of
> the CLINT, is a RISC-V spec.  IIRC it's not finished yet (it's the fast
> interrupts task group), but presumably we should have a "riscv,clic-2.0.0" (or
> whatever it ends up being called) compat string to go along with the
> specification.

Whatever you all decide on, note that "sifive,<block><num>" is a SiFive 
thing (as it is documented) and <num> corresponds to tag of the IP 
implmentation (at least it is supposed to). So you can't just copy that 
with 'riscv,<block><num>' unless you have the same IP versioning 
and update the documentation.

Using a spec version is fine, but not standalone. You need 
implementation specific compatible too because no one perfectly 
implements any spec and/or there details a spec may not cover.

Rob

Powered by blists - more mailing lists