Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: add yaml for
 LoongArch CPU interrupt controller
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        WANG Xuerui <kernel@xen0n.name>
Cc:     Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@loongson.cn>,
        Yinbo Zhu <zhuyinbo@loongson.cn>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20221107023404.26730-1-liupeibao@loongson.cn>
 <20221107023404.26730-2-liupeibao@loongson.cn>
 <b45b8cf8-de9d-7132-1a35-48deeb4b79d5@linaro.org>
 <196e80d8-f4fb-7393-81a5-bca757c805f5@loongson.cn>
 <e92beaac-aa88-0336-cb30-7de438de67c9@linaro.org>
 <e5910bf9-b662-a733-57f2-5faccb038cb1@loongson.cn>
 <9bcefe53-5ac8-5265-a0ac-83cdd69798eb@linaro.org>
From:   Liu Peibao <liupeibao@loongson.cn>
Message-ID: <37f77670-f8c3-5fbf-c84f-eeaa85107c5a@loongson.cn>
Date:   Mon, 7 Nov 2022 20:12:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux loongarch64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9bcefe53-5ac8-5265-a0ac-83cdd69798eb@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

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