Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] riscv: dts: sophgo: Put sdhci compatible in dt of specific SoC

From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@kernel.org>
To: Samuel Holland <samuel.holland@sifive.com>
Cc: "Thomas Bonnefille" <thomas.bonnefille@bootlin.com>,
	"Yixun Lan" <dlan@gentoo.org>,
	"Inochi Amaoto" <inochiama@outlook.com>,
	"Rob Herring" <robh@kernel.org>,
	"Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Paul Walmsley" <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
	"Chen Wang" <unicorn_wang@outlook.com>,
	"Chao Wei" <chao.wei@sophgo.com>,
	"Albert Ou" <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
	"Palmer Dabbelt" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"Daniel Lezcano" <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
	"Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
	"Miquèl Raynal" <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
	"Conor Dooley" <conor@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] riscv: dts: sophgo: Put sdhci compatible in dt of specific SoC
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:20:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZnEK_cg1xLbKOUAD@xhacker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a993b58-3d9e-4f92-bf47-7692c9639314@sifive.com>

On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:57:54AM -0500, Samuel Holland wrote:
> Hi Jisheng, Thomas,
> 
> On 2024-06-17 10:40 AM, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 09:16:43PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 11:16:32AM +0200, Thomas Bonnefille wrote:
> >>> On 6/17/24 1:58 AM, Yixun Lan wrote:
> >>>> On 18:47 Wed 12 Jun     , Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > 
> >>>>> Is this change necessary? IIRC, the sdhci is the same across
> >>>>> the whole series.
> > 
> >> sorry for being late, I was busy in the past 2.5 month. Per my
> >> understanding, the sdhci in cv1800b is the same as the one in
> >> sg200x. Maybe I'm wrong, but this was my impression when I cooked
> >> the sdhci driver patch for these SoCs.
> >>
> >>>> I tend to agree with Inochi here, if it's same across all SoC, then no bother to
> >>>> split, it will cause more trouble to maintain..
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> To be honest, I agree with this to, but as a specific compatible for the
> >>> SG2002 was created in commit 849e81817b9b, I thought that the best practice
> >>> was to use it.
> >>
> >> I'd like to take this chance to query DT maintainers: FWICT, in the past
> >> even if the PLIC is the same between SoCs, adding a new compatible for
> >> them seems a must. So when time goes on, the compatbile list would be
> >> longer and longer, is it really necessary? Can we just use the existing
> >> compatible string?
> >> DT maintainers may answered the query in the past, if so, sorry for
> >> querying again.
> > 
> > For new integrations of an IP, yes, new specific compatibles please. New
> > integrations may have different bugs etc, even if the IP itself is the
> > same. If there's different SoCs that are the same die, but with elements
> > fused off, then sure, use the same compatible.
> > 
> > I expect the list of compatibles in the binding to grow rather large, but
> > that is fine. No one SoC is going to do anything other than something like
> > compatible = "renesas,$soc-plic", "andestech,corecomplex-plic", "riscv,plic";
> > which I think is perfectly fine.
> 
> And you can do the same thing here for the SDHCI controller: if you think sg200x
> has the same controller (and integration! e.g. number of clocks/resets) as
> cv1800b, then you should keep sophgo,cv1800b-dwcmshc as a fallback compatible
> string. Then the driver doesn't need any changes until/unless you eventually
> find some reason they are not compatible.
> 
> It's better to have a SoC-specific compatible string in the DT and not need it,
> than find out later you need one and not have it. :)

Good idea, this solution looks better! Thanks for the suggestion

> 
> Regards,
> Samuel
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv