Hi Jessica,
Thank you for your review.
On 07/01/2025 12:56, Jessica Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 04:14:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:16 PM Vincenzo Frascino
>> <vincenzo.frascino@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> + cpus {
>>> + #address-cells = <2>;
>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>> +
>>> + cpu0: cpu@0 {
>>> + compatible = "arm,neoverse-n1";
>>
>> I'm pretty sure the N1 doesn't support CHERI/morello. Perhaps
>> "arm,neoverse-n1-morello" if we want to capture what it is derived
>> from and since "arm,morello" is taken already.
>
> Rainier is the codename of the core itself, and Morello LLVM recognises
> -mcpu=rainier not -mcpu=morello (there's -march=morello instead), so
> perhaps it should really be "arm,rainier". Though SMBIOS reports it as
> Morello-R0P1 so it may be best to use "arm,morello" here.
>
We agree on the concept. It should either be "arm,rainier" or "arm,morello-r0p1"
if we want to capture the information of SMBIOS. When we reach consensus I will
update the patches accordingly (Please have a look at my reply to Rob).
> The real problem is that the board compatible has changed to include a
> generic "arm,morello" node, with the argument that a v2 board could
> appear. So why not instead change *that* to be something like:
>
> compatible = "arm,morello-sdp-v1", "arm,morello-sdp";
>
> Then you can use "arm,morello" here for the cores.>
The name morello on its own is too overloaded of meaning if we do not specify to
what we are referring to.
> Though some of this may depend on what the FVP's DTS looks like; is it
> going to claim to be a Morello SDP, or does there need to be a common
> denominator compatible beneath that it can use?
>
I still did not start bringing up to speed the DTS for FVP but I think that we
should distinguish in between SDP and FVP since not everything is the same,
hence it should have something similar to:
compatible = "arm,morello-fvp", "arm,morello";
> Please CC me on future versions of this series.
>
Will do.
> Jess
--
Regards,
Vincenzo
