linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: riscv: Add DT binding documentation for Renesas RZ/Five SoC and SMARC EVK

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: <5292fbdd-9eae-2398-1260-cbef652f6af2@microchip.com>
Date:   Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:29:11 +0000
From:   <Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>
To:     <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <biju.das.jz@...renesas.com>,
        <prabhakar.csengg@...il.com>
CC:     <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@...renesas.com>,
        <geert+renesas@...der.be>, <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
        <robh+dt@...nel.org>, <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>, <palmer@...belt.com>,
        <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, <anup@...infault.org>,
        <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>, <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] dt-bindings: riscv: Add DT binding documentation for
 Renesas RZ/Five SoC and SMARC EVK

On 27/07/2022 14:00, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> On 27/07/2022 14:56, Biju Das wrote:
>>>
>>> Then it is not the same SoC! Same means same, identical. CPU
>>> architecture is one of the major differences, which means it is not the
>>> same.
>>
>> Family SoC(R9A07G043) is at top level. Then it has different SoCId for taking care of
>> differences for SoC based on ARMV8 and RISC-V which has separate compatible like
>> r9a07g043u11 and r9a07g043f01?
> 
> This does not answer the concern - it's not the same SoC. The most
> generic compatible denotes the most common part. I would argue that
> instruction set and architecture are the most important differences.
> None of ARMv8 SoCs (SoCs, not CPU cores) have "arm,armv8" compatible and
> you went even more - you combined two architectures in the most generic
> compatibles.

I would have to agree with this. The most "core" part of the SoC is
its architecture and while the peripheral IPs might be the same etc
& the Renesas marketing team might have put them in the same "family",
for the purposes of a device tree I don't see how having a common
fallback makes sense.

Conor.