>>>> 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. > AFAIK, the clint IP is designed by T-HEAD, not Sophgo. Sophgo change this IP layout to fit its weird cpu design. But in my test, the timer and mswi of clint is compatible with the T-HEAD one. So we should treat this as T-HEAD IP, not Sophgo?
