On 21/08/2022 07:45, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> 在 2022-08-20星期六的 17:29 +0000，Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx写道：
>> On 20/08/2022 18:24, Samuel Holland wrote:
>>> On 8/15/22 12:01 PM, Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> On 15/08/2022 14:11, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless
>>>>> you know the content is safe
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2022 00:08:09 -0500
>>>>> Samuel Holland <samuel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks for all the efforts in getting those SoC peripherals
>>>>> supported!
>>>>>
>>>>>> D1 is a SoC containing a single-core T-HEAD Xuantie C906 CPU,
>>>>>> as well as
>>>>>> one HiFi 4 DSP. The SoC is based on a design that
>>>>>> additionally contained
>>>>>> a pair of Cortex A7's. For that reason, some peripherals are
>>>>>> duplicated.
>>>>>
>>>>> So because of this, the Allwinner R528 and T113 SoCs would
>>>>> share almost
>>>>> everything in this file. Would it be useful to already split
>>>>> this DT up?
>>>>> To have a base .dtsi, basically this file without /cpus and
>>>>> /soc/plic,
>>>>> then have a RISC-V specific file with just those, including the
>>>>> base?
>>>>> There is precedence for this across-arch(-directories) sharing
>>>>> with the
>>>>> Raspberry Pi and Allwinner H3/H5 SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> For those playing along at home, one example is the arm64
>>>> bananapi m2
>>>> dts which looks like:
>>>>> /dts-v1/;
>>>>> #include "sun50i-h5.dtsi"
>>>>> #include "sun50i-h5-cpu-opp.dtsi"
>>>>> #include <arm/sunxi-bananapi-m2-plus-v1.2.dtsi>
>>>>>
>>>>> / {
>>>>> model = "Banana Pi BPI-M2-Plus v1.2 H5";
>>>>> compatible = "bananapi,bpi-m2-plus-v1.2",
>>>>> "allwinner,sun50i-h5";
>>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a pretty good idea, and putting in the modularity
>>>> up
>>>> front seems logical to me, so when the arm one does eventually
>>>> get
>>>> added it can be done by only touching a single arch.
>>>
>>> This is not feasible, due to the different #interrupt-cells. See
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAMuHMdXHSMcrVOH+vcrdRRF+i2TkMcFisGxHMBPUEa8nTMFpzw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>>
>>> Even if we share some file across architectures, you still have to
>>> update files
>>> in both places to get the interrupts properties correct.
>>>
>>> I get the desire to deduplicate things, but we already deal with
>>> updating the
>>> same/similar nodes across several SoCs, so that is nothing new. I
>>> think it would
>>> be more confusing/complicated to have all of the interrupts
>>> properties
>>> overridden in a separate file.
>>
>> Yeah, should maybe have circled back after that conversation, would
>> have been
>> nice but if the DTC can't do it nicely then w/e.
>
> Well, maybe we can overuse the facility of C preprocessor?
>
> e.g.
>
> ```
> // For ARM
> #define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(n) GIC_SPI n
> // For RISC-V
> #define SOC_PERIPHERAL_IRQ(n) n
> ```
>
Geert pointed out that this is not possible (at least on the Renesas
stuff) because the GIC interrupt numbers are not the same as the
PLIC's & the DTC is not able to handle the addition:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/CAMuHMdXHSMcrVOH+vcrdRRF+i2TkMcFisGxHMBPUEa8nTMFpzw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
Thanks,
Conor.
