linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 06/11] dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer

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]

Date:   Thu, 28 Sep 2023 17:39:17 +0800
From:   Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>
To:     Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc:     aou@...s.berkeley.edu, chao.wei@...hgo.com,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com,
        guoren@...nel.org, jszhang@...nel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, palmer@...belt.com,
        paul.walmsley@...ive.com, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        xiaoguang.xing@...hgo.com, Anup Patel <apatel@...tanamicro.com>,
        Chen Wang <wangchen20@...as.ac.cn>,
        Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@...look.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/11] dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer

>>>> If so, whether we should replace the "thead,c900-clint" with these separate
>>>> DT to describe the thead clint?
>>>
>>> No, since that's a different device, right?
>>>
>>
>> Yes. It seems sophgo defined these by themselves, but the T-HEAD. Sorry
>> for my mistake.
>
>I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this. Do you mean that the IP is not
>T-Head, but rather designed by Sophgo? If the IP is made by T-Head, then
>I would expect to see something like
>
>compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-aclint-mtimer", "thead,c900-aclint-mtimer";
>
>in the dts.
>

AFAIK, the clint IP is designed by T-HEAD, not Sophgo. Sophgo change this
IP layout to fit its weird cpu design. But in my test, the timer and mswi
of clint is compatible with the T-HEAD one. So we should treat this as
T-HEAD IP, not Sophgo?