[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 08/15] riscv: provide native clint access for M-mode
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 11:48:52AM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> 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.

De facto, but not mandatory.

> 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.

At least the splitting can keep reminding us and any new comers in the future
that CLINT is not (yet) a must in RISC-V landscape. A previous discussion
FYI: ( )

> _______________________________________________
> linux-riscv mailing list

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-04 04:06    [W:0.049 / U:8.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site