Message-ID: <4a55301a-ef7e-4b47-8151-621cfba36ddd@freeshell.de>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 07:16:12 -0800
From: E Shattow <e@...eshell.de>
To: Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@...onical.com>,
 Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
 Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Hal Feng <hal.feng@...rfivetech.com>,
 Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schuchardt@...onical.com>,
 Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
 Krzysztof Wilczyński <kwilczynski@...nel.org>,
 Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>,
 Manivannan Sadhasivam <mani@...nel.org>, Palmer Dabbelt
 <palmer@...belt.com>, Paul Walmsley <pjw@...nel.org>,
 "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
 Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] Add support for StarFive VisionFive 2 Lite board



On 11/13/25 02:42, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
> Quoting Hal Feng (2025-11-13 04:42:05)
>>> On 12.11.25 21:54, Emil Renner Berthing wrote:
>>> Quoting Hal Feng (2025-11-07 10:55:22)
>>>> VisionFive 2 Lite is a mini SBC based on the StarFive JH7110S
>>>> industrial SoC which can run at -40~85 degrees centigrade and up to
>>>> 1.25GHz.
> [...]
>>> Currently the JH7110 device trees are layed out like this, with a nice separation
>>> between the SoC description and board descriptions:
>>>
>>> jh7110.dtsi               # JH7110 SoC description
>>> |- jh7110-common.dtsi     # Peripherals common to all JH7110 boards
>>>    |- jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi # Peripherals common to VF2 boards
>>>    |  |- <VF2 boards>     # Final VF2 board descriptions
>>>    |- jh7110-milkv-marscm.dtsi # Peripherals common to Mars CM boards
>>>    |  |- <Mars CM boards> # Final Mars CM board descriptions
>>>    |- <other boards>      # Other JH7110 board descriptions
>>>
>>> With this series it moves to
>>>
>>> jh711x.dtsi
>>> |- jh711x-common.dtsi
>>>    |- jh7110-common.dtsi
>>>    |  |- <jh7110 boards>
>>>    |- jh7110s-common.dtsi
>>>       |- <jh7110s boards>
>>>
>>> ..which I can't even give clear labels like above. In other words when new
>>> patches are sent in it would not be easy to explain exactly where each change
>>> should go and why.
>>> I'm also worried that you'll find that more of the peripherals on the JH7110S
>>> need special handling and a new jh7110s-... compatible string. Then I guess
>>> they'll need to jump from jh7110x.dtsi two levels down to jh7110{,s}-
>>> common.dtsi which then both describe SoC and board properties.
>>>
>>> If you're serious about calling this a new SoC then I'd expect something more
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> jh711x.dtsi                  # Peripherals common to both SoCs
>>> |- jh7110.dtsi               # JH7110 SoC description
>>> |  |- jh7110-common.dtsi     # Peripherals common to all JH7110 boards
>>> |     |- jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi # Peripherals common to VF2 boards
>>> |     |  |- <VF2 boards>     # Final VF2 board descriptions
>>> |     |- jh7110-milkv-marscm.dtsi # Peripherals common to Mars CM boards
>>> |     |  |- <Mars CM boards> # Final Mars CM board descriptions
>>> |     |- <other boards>      # Other JH7110 board descriptions
>>> |- jh7110s.dtsi              # JH7110S SoC description
>>>    |- jh7110s-common.dtsi    # Peripherals common to all JH7110S boards
>>>       |- <JH7110S boards>    # Final JH7110S board descriptions
>>>
>>> I know this will mean some duplication in jh7110{,s}-common.dtsi, but I
>>> would prefer that to not having a clear explanation of what each file describes.
>>>
>>> Do you think this layout could work for you?
>>
>> Yeah, it is clearer for developers and maintainers.
>>
>> Considering Conor's suggestion, what about:
>>
>> jh7110.dtsi               # JH7110 SoC description
>> |- jh7110-common.dtsi     # Peripherals common to all JH7110 boards
>>    |- jh7110-starfive-visionfive-2.dtsi # Peripherals common to VF2 boards
>>    |  |- <VF2 boards>     # Final VF2 board descriptions
>>    |- jh7110-milkv-marscm.dtsi # Peripherals common to Mars CM boards
>>    |  |- <Mars CM boards> # Final Mars CM board descriptions
>>    |- <other boards>      # Other JH7110 board descriptions
>> |- <JH7110S boards>
>>

JH-7110 and JH-7110I reference docs are listed (not any JH-7110S) at:
https://doc-en.rvspace.org/Doc_Center/datasheet_0.html

Does the JH-7110I use the OPP table for JH-7110 or JH-7110S?

>> Move the opp table from jh7110.dtsi to jh7110-common.dtsi.
>> Remove jh7110s-common.dtsi, because only one board uses JH7110S now.
> 
> This patchset adds 2 different boards. Has this changed?
> 
> Also this would mean that you're not using the starfive,jh7110s compatible or
> any other starfive,jh7110s-.. compatible strings, so effectively you're not
> treating it as a new chip, but just a board that needs a different opp table.
> 
> I see now that the opp table is effectively the only difference between the two
> chips in this patchset, so if that's closer to reality then what you suggest is
> fine with me.
> 
> /Emil

Are we now re-visiting Hal's suggestion then (during code review for
Milk-V Mars CM and Mars CM Lite) to split out the OPP tables and make
them per-board, as before introduction of the StarFive VisionFive 2 Lite
board(s) ?

Can we then do as from where we are now before this series:

- Move "the JH-7110" OPP table into jh7110-common-opp-1500.dtsi

- Each board jh7110-{deepcomputing,milkv,pine64,starfive}*.dts includes
said OPP dtsi file.

and for this series:

- Drop the adding of a new compatible

- Add "the JH-7110S" OPP table into jh7110-common-opp-1250.dtsi

- Use existing jh7110-* prefix for "JH-7110S" board dtsi and dts,
include jh7110-common.dtsi as usual, and include jh7110-common-opp-1250.dtsi

The exact filename pattern for the OPP tables I suggest here are
approximations, however that idea is my suggestion if we're just doing a
breakout of the tables and not a new compatible.

I am positive on having the 1250MHz OPP tables split out into dtsi
instead of stuffing them into the VisionFive 2 Lite common dtsi. That's
all it is?

-E

Powered by blists - more mailing lists