On Fri, Dec 16, 2022, at 17:32, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2022 23:02:58 PST (-0800), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 01:40:30PM -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>> Given that we already moved the SiFive one out it seems sane to just start
>>> with the rest in drivers/soc/$VENDOR. Looks like it was Christoph's idea to
>>> do the move, so I'm adding him in case he's got an opinion (and also the SOC
>>> alias, as that seems generally relevant).
>>
>> Well, it isn't an integral architecture feature, so it doesn't really
>> beloing into arch. Even the irqchip and timer drivers that are more
>> less architectural are in drivers/ as they aren't really core
>> architecture code.
>
> That makes sense to me, it just looks like the SiFive ccache is the only
> one that's in drivers/soc/$VENDOR, the rest are in arch. It looks like
> mostly older ports that have vendor-specific cache files in arch (ie,
> arm has it but arm64 doesn't). Maybe that's just because the newer
> architectures sorted out standard ISA interfaces for these and thus
> don't need the vendor-specific bits? I think we're likely to end up
> with quite a few of these vendor-specific cache management schemes on
> RISC-V.
>
> I'm always happy to keep stuff out of arch/riscv, though. So maybe we
> just buck the trend here and stick to drivers/soc/$VENDOR like we did
> for the first one?
I don't particularly like drivers/soc/ to become more of a dumping
ground for random drivers. If there are several SoCs that have the
same requirement to do a particular thing, the logical step would
be to put them into a proper subsystem, with a well-defined interface
to dma-mapping and virtualization frameworks.
The other things we have in drivers/soc/ are usually either
soc_device drivers for identifying the system, or they export
interfaces used by soc specific drivers.
Arnd
