On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:13:30PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: > On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:41:27PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > > > > 于 2022年11月22日 GMT+08:00 下午3:35:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> 写到: > > >On 22/11/2022 08:18, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > >> 在 2022-11-21星期一的 11:06 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道： > > >>> On 21/11/2022 05:17, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > >>>> T-Head OpenC906 is a open-source-licensed fixed-configuration of > > >>>> C906, > > >>>> which is now public and able to be integrated. > > >>>> > > >>>> Add a compatible for the CLINT shipped as part of OpenC906, which > > >>>> should > > >>>> just be ordinary C9xx CLINT. > > >>>> > > >>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>>> --- > > >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml | 1 + > > >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > >>>> > > >>>> diff --git > > >>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml > > >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml > > >>>> index aada6957216c..86703e995e31 100644 > > >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml > > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml > > >>>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties: > > >>>> - const: sifive,clint0 > > >>>> - items: > > >>>> - enum: > > >>>> + - thead,openc906-clint > > >>>> - allwinner,sun20i-d1-clint > > >>> > > >>> Add entries sorted alphabetically. This should be squashed with > > >>> previous > > >>> patch. > > >> > > >> I make it a seperated patch because I think it's a questionable > > >> approach. > > >> > > >> If you think it's okay, I will just squash it and put it as the second > > >> patch in the next iteration, with adding openc906-plic as the first > > >> one. > > > > > >What is a questionable approach? Why commit msg is not saying this? > > > > Ah I mentioned it in the cover letter. The problem is just I doubt whether > > binding strings for single SoCs are necessary. > > They are. > > Unless all the quirks/bugs/features are somehow guaranteed to be exactly > the same as other SoCs sharing the same compatible string, or there is > another mechanism to identify the exact version (e.g. a version > register). Icenowy, Having thought about this a little - are we not *more* likely to see bug/quirk disparity between implementations of the OpenC906 stuff by the very nature of being an open-source IP? Thanks, Conor.
