From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 08:43:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC documentation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180809064353.GA19566@lst.de> To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-riscv.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:29:17PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> So I guess to answer my question, you are just making up version >> numbers. Unless you are doing the IP verilog too, don't do that. > > Well, in this case my proposal would be that we change the hardware team's > versioning scheme to match whatever we decide on the versioning scheme > should be as a part of this discussion. I proposed accepting whatever > versioning scheme is decided upon hereto the hardware team before > discussing changing the naming scheme and they agreed to do so. > > So we're really in the drivers' seat here. > >> If you want to use just 'sifive,plic' then I'm fine with that. I've >> given you the potential problems with that and they will be your >> problems to deal with. Maybe you'll get lucky. Plus it won't be a >> problem for the 1st implementation. > > I'd prefer to have some versioning scheme, that's why I'm talking so much > about this :). I really just want to learn how to get the right one, as > I'm quite new to all this and we'll have many of these. Based on the discussion so far I think we should settle for sifive,plic + an actual implementation string suggested by Palmer and Andrew. This is what I have right now: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/riscv.git/commitdiff/1972707029f8f1216dbe14bd7791295e4b37f560 and which I'd like to send out before it is too late. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC documentation Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 08:43:53 +0200 Message-ID: <20180809064353.GA19566@lst.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, atish.patra@wdc.com, Christoph Hellwig , tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, anup@brainfault.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, shorne@gmail.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:29:17PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> So I guess to answer my question, you are just making up version >> numbers. Unless you are doing the IP verilog too, don't do that. > > Well, in this case my proposal would be that we change the hardware team's > versioning scheme to match whatever we decide on the versioning scheme > should be as a part of this discussion. I proposed accepting whatever > versioning scheme is decided upon hereto the hardware team before > discussing changing the naming scheme and they agreed to do so. > > So we're really in the drivers' seat here. > >> If you want to use just 'sifive,plic' then I'm fine with that. I've >> given you the potential problems with that and they will be your >> problems to deal with. Maybe you'll get lucky. Plus it won't be a >> problem for the 1st implementation. > > I'd prefer to have some versioning scheme, that's why I'm talking so much > about this :). I really just want to learn how to get the right one, as > I'm quite new to all this and we'll have many of these. Based on the discussion so far I think we should settle for sifive,plic + an actual implementation string suggested by Palmer and Andrew. This is what I have right now: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/riscv.git/commitdiff/1972707029f8f1216dbe14bd7791295e4b37f560 and which I'd like to send out before it is too late.