On 17/12/2021 16:00, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> Hi Conor,
>
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 4:32 PM <Conor.Dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 17/12/2021 13:43, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 10:33 AM <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> Split the device tree for the Microchip MPFS into two sections by adding
>>>> microchip-mpfs-fabric.dtsi, which contains peripherals contained in the
>>>> FPGA fabric.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your patch!
>>>
>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/boot/dts/microchip/microchip-mpfs-fabric.dtsi
>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
>>>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT)
>>>> +/* Copyright (c) 2020-2021 Microchip Technology Inc */
>>>> +
>>>> +/ {
>>>> + corePWM0: pwm@41000000 {
>>>> + compatible = "microchip,corepwm";
>>>> + reg = <0x0 0x41000000 0x0 0xF0>;
>>>> + microchip,sync-update = /bits/ 8 <0>;
>>>> + #pwm-cells = <2>;
>>>> + clocks = <&clkcfg CLK_FIC3>;
>>>> + status = "disabled";
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if these should be grouped under a "fabric" subnode,
>>> like we have an "soc" subnode for on-SoC devices? Rob?
>>>
>>> BTW, do you already have a naming plan for different revisions of
>>> FPGA fabric cores?
>> Not yet (assuming you mean specifically how we will handle it in the
>> device tree) - although i was talking to someone about it yesterday.
>> It's possible that we might handle that via a register, but if you have
>> a suggestion or some precedence that you're aware of that would be useful.
>>
>> The actual naming convention of the IP cores themselves, yeah. I will
>> dig it up for you on Monday.
>
> I meant what if corepwm is enhanced, and how to detect that?
>
Looks like "microchip,core<name>-N" is the plan. More recent IP cores
have a register from which the version number can be read but that isnt
(and wont be) the case for all versions.
Where this register does exist, we will use it & if not fall back onto
the compat. string.
> SiFive uses an integer version number, even for hard cores[1].
> OpenCores uses an "-rtlsvnN" suffix (isn't svn dead? ;-)
At least here, "hardware" people seem to be a fan of it still (sadly?)
> No idea what e.g. LiteX and Microwatt are planning. >
> [1] Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt
>
>
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
>
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
