On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 6:04 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:56 AM Anup Patel <anup@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:54 AM Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:47:23AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote: > > > > We add DT bindings documentation for the ACLINT MSWI and SSWI > > > > devices found on RISC-V SOCs. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxx> > > > > Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > .../riscv,aclint-swi.yaml | 95 +++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 1 file changed, 95 insertions(+) > > > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml > > > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 000000000000..68563259ae24 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@ > > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) > > > > +%YAML 1.2 > > > > +--- > > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml# > > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +title: RISC-V ACLINT Software Interrupt Devices > > > > + > > > > +maintainers: > > > > + - Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxx> > > > > + > > > > +description: > > > > + RISC-V SOCs include an implementation of the M-level software interrupt > > > > + (MSWI) device and the S-level software interrupt (SSWI) device defined > > > > + in the RISC-V Advanced Core Local Interruptor (ACLINT) specification. > > > > + > > > > + The ACLINT MSWI and SSWI devices are documented in the RISC-V ACLINT > > > > + specification located at > > > > + https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc. > > > > + > > > > + The ACLINT MSWI and SSWI devices directly connect to the M-level and > > > > + S-level software interrupt lines of various HARTs (or CPUs) respectively > > > > + so the RISC-V per-HART (or per-CPU) local interrupt controller is the > > > > + parent interrupt controller for the ACLINT MSWI and SSWI devices. > > > > + > > > > +allOf: > > > > + - $ref: /schemas/interrupt-controller.yaml# > > > > + > > > > +properties: > > > > + compatible: > > > > + oneOf: > > > > + - items: > > > > + - enum: > > > > + - riscv,aclint-mswi > > > > + > > > > + - items: > > > > + - enum: > > > > + - riscv,aclint-sswi > > > > > > All this can be just: > > > > > > enum: > > > - riscv,aclint-mswi > > > - riscv,aclint-sswi > > > > > > However... > > > > > > > + > > > > + description: > > > > + For ACLINT MSWI devices, it should be "riscv,aclint-mswi" OR > > > > + "<vendor>,<chip>-aclint-mswi". > > > > + For ACLINT SSWI devices, it should be "riscv,aclint-sswi" OR > > > > + "<vendor>,<chip>-aclint-sswi". > > > > > > s/OR/AND/ > > > > > > There must be a compatible for the implementation. Unless RiscV > > > implementations of specs are complete describing all clocks, power > > > domains, resets, etc. and are quirk free. > > > > > > But don't write free form constraints... > > > > It is possible that quite a few implementations (QEMU, FPGAs, and > > other simulators) will not require implementation specific compatible > > strings. Should we still mandate implementation specific compatible > > strings in DTS for such cases? > > No, but the schema says you only have those cases. Are there not any > actual implementations? All existing RISC-V boards have SiFive CLINT and ACLINT is backward compatible with SiFive CLINT so we do have actual implementations. None of the existing RISC-V boards have special clocks, power domain, resets etc for these devices. > > Minimally make "<vendor>,<chip>-aclint-mswi" into a schema pattern for > the first entry and perhaps a note to replace with actual strings when > there are some. It's ultimately up to the RiscV maintainers to require > SoC specific compatibles here. Allowing a generic one alone makes that > harder because the schema can't enforce it. Can we have a common compatible string for QEMU, FPGAs, etc ? For example, compatible = "riscv,generic-aclint-mswi", "riscv,aclint-mswi"; Regards, Anup > > Rob
