[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4dcaaa70-11e0-fc9d-da03-224d34e36983@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2023 09:40:50 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Binbin Zhou <zhoubb.aaron@...il.com>
Cc: Binbin Zhou <zhoubinbin@...ngson.cn>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
loongson-kernel@...ts.loongnix.cn
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add Loongson
EIOINTC
On 17/02/2023 07:09, Binbin Zhou wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof:
>>>
>>> Allow me to give a brief overview of the current status of eiointc (DT-based):
>>> Loongson-3A series supports eiointc;
>>> Loongson-2K1000 does not support eiointc now;
>>> Loongson-2K0500 supports eiointc, with differences from
>>> Loongson-3, e.g. only up to 128 devices are supported;
>>> Loongson-2K2000 supports eiointc, similar to Loongson-3.
>>> ....
>>>
>>> As can be seen, there is now a bit of confusion in the chip's design of eiointc.
>>>
>>> The design of eiointc is probably refined step by step with the chip.
>>> The same version of eiointc can be used for multiple chips, and the
>>> same chip series may also use different versions of eiointc. Low-end
>>> chips may use eiointc-2.0, and high-end chips may use eiointc-1.0,
>>> depending on the time it's produced.
>>>
>>> So in the Loongson-2K series I have defined the current state as
>>> eiointc-1.0, using the dts property to indicate the maximum number of
>>> devices supported by eiointc that can be used directly in the driver.
>>>
>>> If there are new changes to the design later on, such as the
>>> definition of registers, we can call it eiointc-2.0, which can also
>>> cover more than one chip.
>>
>> Just go with SoC-based compatibles. If your version is not specific
>> enough, then it is not a good way to represent the hardware.
>>
>
> Hi Krzysztof:
>
> I have tried to write the following SoC-based compatibles, is it fine?
>
> compatible:
> enum:
> - loongson,ls3a-eiointc # For MIPS Loongson-3A if necessary.
> - loongson,ls2k0500-eiointc
> - loongson,ls2k200-eiointc
Looks good, but didn't you state these are compatible between each
other? I have impression there is a common set, so maybe one compatible
work on other device with reduced number of devices?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists