On Thu, Sep 28, 2023 at 05:39:17PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > >>>> 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? Yes, in the way I demonstrated above probably.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
