linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: riscv: sifive: Add SiFive Private L2 cache controller

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: <f5275617-d68c-c76b-d799-106f67cc2071@linaro.org>
Date:   Sat, 1 Jul 2023 10:22:25 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Eric Lin <eric.lin@...ive.com>
Cc:     conor@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dslin1010@...il.com,
        Zong Li <zong.li@...ive.com>, Nick Hu <nick.hu@...ive.com>,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@...ive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: riscv: sifive: Add SiFive Private L2
 cache controller

On 28/06/2023 18:31, Eric Lin wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> +      - enum:
>>>>> +          - sifive,pL2Cache0
>>>>> +          - sifive,pL2Cache1
>>>>
>>>> What is "0" and "1" here? What do these compatibles represent? Why they
>>>> do not have any SoC related part?
>>>
>>> The pL2Cache1 has minor changes in hardware, but it can use the same
>>> pl2 cache driver.
>>
>> Then why aren't they compatible?
>>
> 
> The pL2Cache1 has removed some unused bits in the register compared to
> pl2Cache0.
> From the hardware perspective, they are not compatible but they can
> share the same pl2 cache driver in software.

So they are compatible... If they were not compatible, you wouldn't be
able to use the same match in the driver.

> Thus, we would like to keep both. It would be great if you can provide
> some suggestions. Thanks.

I propose to make them compatible, like every other piece of SoC. I
don't see any benefit of having them separate.

Best regards,
Krzysztof