linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/7] riscv: dts: bouffalolab: add the bl808 SoC base device tree

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: <Y3o5dqPX7ScTs9qj@spud>
Date:   Sun, 20 Nov 2022 14:28:06 +0000
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>
Cc:     Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
        Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>,
        linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/7] riscv: dts: bouffalolab: add the bl808 SoC base
 device tree

On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 07:58:56PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> 在 2022-11-20星期日的 11:02 +0000，Conor Dooley写道：
> > On Sun, Nov 20, 2022 at 04:21:12PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > Add a baisc dtsi for the bouffalolab bl808 SoC.

> > > +               plic: interrupt-controller@...00000 {
> > > +                       compatible = "thead,c900-plic";
> > 
> > Hmm, this one fails validation too. Likely you need to add a
> > "bouffalolab,plic" to the plic dt-binding or otherwise modify the
> > binding such that thead,c900-plic on it's own is permitted. CC Samuel
> > on
> > that patch please in case he has an opinion on it.
> 
> Personally I prefer a single c900-plic in compatible, because the PLIC
> doesn't look so configurable in C906/C910 (the interrupt source number
> is really adjustable, but it's already in the riscv,ndev property).

Right, if all implementations are going to be identical (modulo the
riscv,ndev) allowing thead,c900-plic in isolation makes sense to me.
I had a bit of a check in the history & it looks like there was no 
explanation given for why the D1 needed a specific compatible (although
there's no harm in having one in case something comes up in the future
that'd require special handling for a given implementation).