On 3 Dec 2021, at 09:57, v.v.mitrofanov <v.v.mitrofanov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> HiFive unmatched supports PDMA but is not implemented in DT.
>
> Add the PDMA node in SiFive FU740 soc-specific DT file.
>
> Signed-off-by: v.v.mitrofanov <v.v.mitrofanov@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi
> index 64ff2e758336..833fb4f4376b 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi
> @@ -164,6 +164,13 @@ prci: clock-controller@10000000 {
> #clock-cells = <1>;
> #reset-cells = <1>;
> };
> + dma: dma@3000000 {
> + compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-pdma";
I know the PLIC and CGEM devices abuse fu540-specific compatible
strings (which it would be great to fix; FreeBSD is already prepared
for that, though it’d also be nice to introduce a generic compatible
string for the SiFive CGEM rather than having just a SoC-specific one
given the FU540 and FU740 have the same interface), but let’s not make
things worse. This should say fu740, and there should also be a generic
SiFive PDMA compatible so we don’t need to add a new compatible to an
otherwise-unchanged driver every time a new SiFive SoC appears.
Jess
