On 11/7/22 7:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>>>> + const: loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller >>>>> >>>>> You have exactly one and only one type of CPU interrupt controller for >>>>> all your Loongarch designs? All current and all future? All? >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is sure of that "all current and recent designs". It is really hard to limit the >>>> design in the distant future. >>>> >>>> And if there is updating, maybe I will add additional things like this: >>>> "loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller-2.0". >>> >>> Unless you have a clear versioning of your hardware, adding 2.0 won't be >>> correct. Don't you have this for specific SoC? >>> >> >> The "loongarch,cpu-interrupt-controller" now is compatible for all the LoongArch >> compatible CPUs, not specific for one chip. And we may keep this CPU interrupt >> controller for a long time. > > Still specific compatibles (as fallbacks) are used for such cases, so > why is this different? Hardware compatible with several other devices > still gets specific compatible, right? > I don't really agree with that. This is a specified higher level abstract of all our designed hardware. We could do this as we have unified this in hardware. So this compatible could be simple. > You cannot have "-2.0" suffix in the future just because "you want", so > be sure that your choice is reasonable. > It was an example and the CPUs IRQs hardware updating is not on our schedule. If I do some thing like "-2.0" in the future, I will find a proper way and be reasonable. BR, Peibao
