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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230616063210.19063-1-eric.lin@sifive.com> <20230616063210.19063-4-eric.lin@sifive.com>
 <2437bda9-bbdb-ad80-7201-1e16e1388890@linaro.org> <CAPqJEFoTsmVZ4kvsSB0RkQZaQGyXC96KV6RvdpeC5XxURCOZ0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <8c9ed2d4-83ab-ecc0-a300-e6bc8e2047b6@linaro.org> <CAPqJEFqhmxksvEgvC61cJcRGR0DrSWDZxJC3J7tdgcG8UY+sFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <f5275617-d68c-c76b-d799-106f67cc2071@linaro.org> <20230712110908.GA23216@hsinchu16>
 <0865b422-d587-c1c7-9463-510832ddddf4@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <0865b422-d587-c1c7-9463-510832ddddf4@linaro.org>
From:   Eric Lin <eric.lin@sifive.com>
Date:   Thu, 20 Jul 2023 17:49:17 +0800
Message-ID: <CAPqJEFp_YgsXOymQPH1Pr4cORtv=8oS0OWnACWqNe69ARMRwvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dt-bindings: riscv: sifive: Add SiFive Private L2
 cache controller
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Cc:     conor@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dslin1010@gmail.com,
        Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>, vincent.chen@sifive.com,
        Greentime Hu <greentime.hu@sifive.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

Hi Krzysztof,

On Wed, Jul 12, 2023 at 8:30=E2=80=AFPM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 12/07/2023 13:09, Eric Lin wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 01, 2023 at 10:22:25AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 28/06/2023 18:31, Eric Lin wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +      - enum:
> >>>>>>> +          - sifive,pL2Cache0
> >>>>>>> +          - sifive,pL2Cache1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What is "0" and "1" here? What do these compatibles represent? Why=
 they
> >>>>>> do not have any SoC related part?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The pL2Cache1 has minor changes in hardware, but it can use the sam=
e
> >>>>> pl2 cache driver.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then why aren't they compatible?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> The pL2Cache1 has removed some unused bits in the register compared t=
o
> >>> pl2Cache0.
> >>> From the hardware perspective, they are not compatible but they can
> >>> share the same pl2 cache driver in software.
> >>
> >> So they are compatible... If they were not compatible, you wouldn't be
> >> able to use the same match in the driver.
> >>
> >>> Thus, we would like to keep both. It would be great if you can provid=
e
> >>> some suggestions. Thanks.
> >>
> >> I propose to make them compatible, like every other piece of SoC. I
> >> don't see any benefit of having them separate.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > Sorry for the late reply.
> > The pl2 cache is our internal platform IP and is not part of any SoC.
> >
> > The reason why this driver is compatible with the hardware "pl2cache0" =
and hardware "pl2cache1"
> > is that it doesn't program the different parts of the config register
> > However, our internal software (e.g., bare-metal software) will program=
 these different parts,
> > so it needs to rely on the different compatible string to identify the =
hardware.
> >
> > Additionally, we would like the compatible strings to reflect which har=
dware is being used Thanks.
>
> I don't understand how does it contradicts anything I said. So you do
> agree with me? Or what?
>

Thanks for your suggestions. OK, I'll fix it in v2.

Best regards,
Eric Lin

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>