linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: timer: sifive,clint: add compatible for OpenC906

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <B1B2FC9D-D971-435B-A9FD-B092DE726367@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 05 Dec 2022 16:54:48 +0000
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
To:     Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@...rochip.com>
CC:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@...nel.org>,
        Samuel Holland <samuel@...lland.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: timer: sifive,clint: add compatible for OpenC906



On 5 December 2022 15:59:44 GMT, Icenowy Zheng <uwu@...nowy.me> wrote:
>在 2022-12-05星期一的 15:05 +0000，Conor Dooley写道：
>> On Mon, Dec 05, 2022 at 07:03:17PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> > 在 2022-12-05星期一的 10:36 +0000，Conor Dooley写道：
>> 
>> > > You lot all know the situation here a lot more than I do...
>> > > I don't think "letting" people use the bare "thead,c900-foo"
>> > > makes
>> > > much
>> > > sense as it gives us no chance to deal with quirks down the line.
>> > 
>> > Well, after rechecking the manual, I found it possible to handle
>> > quirks
>> > -- T-Head has a custom "mcpuid" CSR (@ RISC-V CSR 0xFC0), which can
>> > be
>> > used to retrieve some identification info of the core, including
>> > its
>> > model ID, version, etc; and the T-Head PLIC/CLINT are part of their
>> > C906 SoC design that there's another "mapbaddr" CSR that could be
>> > used
>> > to retrieve the base address of them.
>> > 
>> > So I think it okay to just use "thead,c900-clint" here, and when
>> > necessary, try to retrieve mcpuid for dealing with quirks.
>> 
>> I'm not super sure I follow. What's the relevance of "mapbaddr" here?
>> We've got a reg property, so I don't think we need "mapbaddr"?
>
>Yes, it's not relevant to us here, it's only to prove that PLIC/CLINT
>is part of C906 "Core Complex".
>
>> 
>> For "mcpuid", can you be sure that implementers will not omit setting
>> that value to something unique? I'd be happier if we were overly
>> clear
>> now rather than have some headaches later. Have I missed something?
>
>These values are set by T-Head instead of individual SoC implementers
>as a CPU CSR, and it's not for uniqueness, but it's for identification
>of the CPU core revision (thus the PLIC/CLINT that come with it).

I really am missing something here that must be obvious to you.
Let me try and explain where my gap in understanding is.
If someone takes the open cores & makes a minor tweak in the plic how does knowing mcpuid help us identify that that plic is marginally different?

I must have missed something that should be apparent and look like an eejit right now!

>
>> 
>> > > I don't think that using "thead,openc906-clint", "thead,c900-
>> > > clint"
>> > > makes all that much sense either, in case someone does something
>> > > wacky
>> > > with the open-source version of the core.
>> > > 
>> > > That leaves us with either:
>> > > "vendor,soc-clint", "thead,openc906-clint", "thead,c900-clint"
>> > > or:
>> > > "vendor,soc-clint", "thead,c900-clint"
>> > > right?
>> > > 
>> > > The first one seems like possibly the better option as you'd
>> > > kinda
>> > > expect that, in a perfect word, all of the open-source IP
>> > > implementations would share quirks etc?
>> 
>