On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:33:00AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:36:27AM GMT, Yixun Lan wrote: > > hi Thomas: > > > > On 12:28 Mon 27 May , Thomas Bonnefille wrote: > > > Add compatible string for SOPHGO SG2002 Platform-Level Interruter > > > Controller. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bonnefille <thomas.bonnefille@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > .../devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml > > > index 709b2211276b..7e1451f9786a 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/sifive,plic-1.0.0.yaml > > > @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ properties: > > > - allwinner,sun20i-d1-plic > > > - sophgo,cv1800b-plic > > > - sophgo,cv1812h-plic > > > + - sophgo,sg2002-plic > > > > it's not necessary to introduce a new compatible name, as sg2002 use same plic IP as cv1800b > > I feel it's wrong to introduce sophgo,cv1812h-plic at first place, but that we can't revert? > > > > same reason also apply to clint in patch 2/5 .. > > > > You are right, it is historical reasons. For hardware, they have the same risc-v cores > across the whole series. > > It could be better to use something just like "cv1800-plic". Different integrations of the same IP could result in bugs present in one device and not another. Unless these SoCs are the same die, but with bits fused off, I'd appreciate soc-specific compatibles. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
