On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 04:24:54PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > >On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 08:34:42AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > > > >>>> +properties: > >>>> + compatible: > >>>> + oneOf: > >>>> + - items: > >>>> + - const: sophgo,sg2042-clint-mtimer > >>> > >>> There's only one of these, so you don't need the oneOf. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >>> Also, is the clint here not a thead IP? In which case, you need to add a > >> > >> Yes, The clint is a thead IP, like that of th1520 and allwinner D1. > >> > >>> second compatible IMO. That second compatible then would be the one that > >>> appears in opensbi etc. > >>> > >> > >> As this is a thead IP, maybe use thead,c900-clint-mtimer is fine? > > > >I would suggest calling it -aclint-mtimer instead of clint-mtimer. > > > > It is OK for me. As I describe below, now use sophgo as vendor is better. > Anyway, I will add a new second one in the next patch. > > >> If so, whether we should replace the "thead,c900-clint" with these separate > >> DT to describe the thead clint? > > > >No, since that's a different device, right? > > > > Yes. It seems sophgo defined these by themselves, but the T-HEAD. Sorry > for my mistake. I'm sorry, I don't quite understand this. Do you mean that the IP is not T-Head, but rather designed by Sophgo? If the IP is made by T-Head, then I would expect to see something like compatible = "sophgo,sg2042-aclint-mtimer", "thead,c900-aclint-mtimer"; in the dts. > > >> The DT binding said the thead clint is not > >> compatible with the sifive clint, so maybe this is a chance to just move > >> them out. > > > >I don't think that it really makes sense to do that.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
