Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 03 Sep 2019 11:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:     Re: [PATCH 08/15] riscv: provide native clint access for M-mode
In-Reply-To: <20190828061146.GA21670@lst.de>
CC:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, mark.rutland@arm.com,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
From:   Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Message-ID: <mhng-e03fb9a6-73ee-437e-aee1-e30427f5d644@palmer-si-x1e>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 23:11:46 PDT (-0700), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 04:37:16PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> clint0 would be version 0 of the clint, with is the core-local interrupt
>> controller in rocket chip.  It should be "sifive,clint-1.0.0", not
>> "riscv,clint0", as it's a SiFive widget.  Unfortunately there are a lot of
>> legacy device trees floating around, but I'm only considering what's been
>> upstream to be actually part of the spec.
>>
>> In this case the code should match on a "sifive,clint-1.0.0", and the
>> device trees should be fixed up to match.  We match on "riscv,plic0" for
>> legacy systems, and I guess it makes sense to do something similar here.
>
> IFF we decided to change it I'd rather separate DT noes for the ipi
> bank vs timecmp register vs timeval to support variable layouts.  The
> downside is that we can't just boot on unmodified upstream qemu, which
> has used the "riscv,clint0" for years.

Like I alluded to above, matching on "riscv,clint0" seems reasonable to me as 
it's a defacto standard -- we'll just have to make sure that if we ever end up 
with a RISC-V CLINT that the DT entry is something else.

As far as splitting the memory maps goes, I don't have a strong opinion but it 
seems like that'll introduce more complexity than it's worth.