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;
Date:   Fri, 18 Nov 2022 11:45:57 +0000
From:   Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
To:     Hal Feng <hal.feng@starfivetech.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Ben Dooks <ben.dooks@sifive.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@pengutronix.de>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Emil Renner Berthing <emil.renner.berthing@canonical.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/8] soc: sifive: ccache: Add StarFive JH7110 support
Message-ID: <Y3dwdXExRRltyp8A@spud>
References: <20221118011714.70877-1-hal.feng@starfivetech.com>
 <20221118011714.70877-6-hal.feng@starfivetech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20221118011714.70877-6-hal.feng@starfivetech.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hey Emil/Hal,

On Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 09:17:11AM +0800, Hal Feng wrote:
> From: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>
> 
> This adds support for the StarFive JH7110 SoC which also
> features this SiFive cache controller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Emil Renner Berthing <kernel@esmil.dk>
> Signed-off-by: Hal Feng <hal.feng@starfivetech.com>
> ---
>  arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs            | 1 +
>  drivers/soc/Makefile               | 2 +-
>  drivers/soc/sifive/Kconfig         | 2 +-
>  drivers/soc/sifive/sifive_ccache.c | 1 +
>  4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs b/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs
> index 69774bb362d6..5a40e05f8cab 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs
> +++ b/arch/riscv/Kconfig.socs
> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ config SOC_STARFIVE
>  	bool "StarFive SoCs"
>  	select PINCTRL
>  	select RESET_CONTROLLER
> +	select SIFIVE_CCACHE

Please no. I am trying to get rid of these selects + I cannot figure out
why this driver is so important that you *need* to select it. Surely the
SoC is useable without it?

Is this a hang over from your vendor tree that uses the driver to do
non-coherent stuff for the jh7100?

>  	select SIFIVE_PLIC
>  	help
>  	  This enables support for StarFive SoC platform hardware.
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/Makefile b/drivers/soc/Makefile
> index 69ba6508cf2c..534669840858 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/Makefile
> +++ b/drivers/soc/Makefile
> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ obj-y				+= qcom/
>  obj-y				+= renesas/
>  obj-y				+= rockchip/
>  obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_SAMSUNG)	+= samsung/
> -obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_SIFIVE)	+= sifive/
> +obj-y				+= sifive/

This bit is fine.

>  obj-y				+= sunxi/
>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA)	+= tegra/
>  obj-y				+= ti/
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/sifive/Kconfig b/drivers/soc/sifive/Kconfig
> index ed4c571f8771..e86870be34c9 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/sifive/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/soc/sifive/Kconfig
> @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
>  # SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
>  
> -if SOC_SIFIVE
> +if SOC_SIFIVE || SOC_STARFIVE

As I suppose is this - but hardly scalable. I suppose it doesn't really
matter.

>  config SIFIVE_CCACHE
>  	bool "Sifive Composable Cache controller"
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/sifive/sifive_ccache.c b/drivers/soc/sifive/sifive_ccache.c
> index 1c171150e878..9489d1a90fbc 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/sifive/sifive_ccache.c
> +++ b/drivers/soc/sifive/sifive_ccache.c
> @@ -107,6 +107,7 @@ static const struct of_device_id sifive_ccache_ids[] = {
>  	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-ccache" },
>  	{ .compatible = "sifive,fu740-c000-ccache" },
>  	{ .compatible = "sifive,ccache0" },
> +	{ .compatible = "starfive,jh7110-ccache" },

Per my second reply to the previous patch, I am not sure why you do not
just have a fallback compatible in the binding/dt for the fu740 ccache
since you appear to have identical configuration?

Thanks,
Conor.