[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <11333b59-733c-186f-3708-7357f72d7bef@microchip.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2021 15:32:47 +0000
From: <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To: <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
CC: <linus.walleij@...aro.org>, <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
<robh+dt@...nel.org>, <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
<paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
<aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>, <broonie@...nel.org>,
<gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
<linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
<krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>, <bin.meng@...driver.com>,
<heiko@...ech.de>, <Lewis.Hanly@...rochip.com>,
<Daire.McNamara@...rochip.com>, <Ivan.Griffin@...rochip.com>,
<atish.patra@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/17] riscv: dts: microchip: add fpga fabric section
to icicle kit
On 17/12/2021 13:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:33 AM <conor.dooley@...rochip.com> wrote:
>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>>
>> Split the device tree for the Microchip MPFS into two sections by adding
>> microchip-mpfs-fabric.dtsi, which contains peripherals contained in the
>> FPGA fabric.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
>
> Thanks for your patch!
>
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/microchip-mpfs-fabric.dtsi
>> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
>> +/* Copyright (c) 2020-2021 Microchip Technology Inc */
>> +
>> +/ {
>> + corePWM0: pwm@...00000 {
>> + compatible = "microchip,corepwm";
>> + reg = <0x0 0x41000000 0x0 0xF0>;
>> + microchip,sync-update = /bits/ 8 <0>;
>> + #pwm-cells = <2>;
>> + clocks = <&clkcfg CLK_FIC3>;
>> + status = "disabled";
>> + };
>
> I'm wondering if these should be grouped under a "fabric" subnode,
> like we have an "soc" subnode for on-SoC devices? Rob?
>
> BTW, do you already have a naming plan for different revisions of
> FPGA fabric cores?
Not yet (assuming you mean specifically how we will handle it in the
device tree) - although i was talking to someone about it yesterday.
It's possible that we might handle that via a register, but if you have
a suggestion or some precedence that you're aware of that would be useful.
The actual naming convention of the IP cores themselves, yeah. I will
dig it up for you on Monday.
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists