lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: add yaml for LoongArch CPU interrupt controller
From
Date
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-11-07 13:13    [W:0.034 / U:0.132 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site