Hi Jisheng, Thomas, On 2024-06-17 10:40 AM, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 09:16:43PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:16:32AM +0200, Thomas Bonnefille wrote: >>> On 6/17/24 1:58 AM, Yixun Lan wrote: >>>> On 18:47 Wed 12 Jun , Inochi Amaoto wrote: > >>>>> Is this change necessary? IIRC, the sdhci is the same across >>>>> the whole series. > >> sorry for being late, I was busy in the past 2.5 month. Per my >> understanding, the sdhci in cv1800b is the same as the one in >> sg200x. Maybe I'm wrong, but this was my impression when I cooked >> the sdhci driver patch for these SoCs. >> >>>> I tend to agree with Inochi here, if it's same across all SoC, then no bother to >>>> split, it will cause more trouble to maintain.. >>>> >>> >>> To be honest, I agree with this to, but as a specific compatible for the >>> SG2002 was created in commit 849e81817b9b, I thought that the best practice >>> was to use it. >> >> I'd like to take this chance to query DT maintainers: FWICT, in the past >> even if the PLIC is the same between SoCs, adding a new compatible for >> them seems a must. So when time goes on, the compatbile list would be >> longer and longer, is it really necessary? Can we just use the existing >> compatible string? >> DT maintainers may answered the query in the past, if so, sorry for >> querying again. > > For new integrations of an IP, yes, new specific compatibles please. New > integrations may have different bugs etc, even if the IP itself is the > same. If there's different SoCs that are the same die, but with elements > fused off, then sure, use the same compatible. > > I expect the list of compatibles in the binding to grow rather large, but > that is fine. No one SoC is going to do anything other than something like > compatible = "renesas,$soc-plic", "andestech,corecomplex-plic", "riscv,plic"; > which I think is perfectly fine. And you can do the same thing here for the SDHCI controller: if you think sg200x has the same controller (and integration! e.g. number of clocks/resets) as cv1800b, then you should keep sophgo,cv1800b-dwcmshc as a fallback compatible string. Then the driver doesn't need any changes until/unless you eventually find some reason they are not compatible. It's better to have a SoC-specific compatible string in the DT and not need it, than find out later you need one and not have it. :) Regards, Samuel
