Hi Conor, On Sat, Dec 17, 2022 at 10:52 PM Conor Dooley <conor@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 09:04:20PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > 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. > > Sounds like that's two "not in my back yard" votes from the maintainers > in question.. > Doing drivers/cache would allow us to co-locate the RISC-V cache > management bits since it is not just going to be the ax45mp l2 driver > that will need to have them. > > Would it be okay to put this driver in soc/andestech for now & then move > it, and the SiFive one, once we've got patches posted for cache > management with that? > I think to start with it would be better if we place the Andes cache driver in the proposed "drivers/cache" folder. We would avoid unnecessary movement of code? Cheers, Prabhakar
