Re: [PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: timer: sifive,clint: add compatible for OpenC906

[Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:13:30PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 03:41:27PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > 于 2022年11月22日 GMT+08:00 下午3:35:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> 写到:
> > >On 22/11/2022 08:18, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > >> 在 2022-11-21星期一的 11:06 +0100，Krzysztof Kozlowski写道：
> > >>> On 21/11/2022 05:17, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > >>>> T-Head OpenC906 is a open-source-licensed fixed-configuration of
> > >>>> C906,
> > >>>> which is now public and able to be integrated.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Add a compatible for the CLINT shipped as part of OpenC906, which
> > >>>> should
> > >>>> just be ordinary C9xx CLINT.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng <uwu@icenowy.me>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml | 1 +
> > >>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> diff --git
> > >>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
> > >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
> > >>>> index aada6957216c..86703e995e31 100644
> > >>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
> > >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/sifive,clint.yaml
> > >>>> @@ -35,6 +35,7 @@ properties:
> > >>>>            - const: sifive,clint0
> > >>>>        - items:
> > >>>>            - enum:
> > >>>> +              - thead,openc906-clint
> > >>>>                - allwinner,sun20i-d1-clint
> > >>>
> > >>> Add entries sorted alphabetically. This should be squashed with
> > >>> previous
> > >>> patch.
> > >> 
> > >> I make it a seperated patch because I think it's a questionable
> > >> approach.
> > >> 
> > >> If you think it's okay, I will just squash it and put it as the second
> > >> patch in the next iteration, with adding openc906-plic as the first
> > >> one.
> > >
> > >What is a questionable approach? Why commit msg is not saying this?
> > 
> > Ah I mentioned it in the cover letter. The problem is just I doubt whether
> > binding strings for single SoCs are necessary.
> 
> They are.
> 
> Unless all the quirks/bugs/features are somehow guaranteed to be exactly 
> the same as other SoCs sharing the same compatible string, or there is 
> another mechanism to identify the exact version (e.g. a version 
> register).

Icenowy,

Having thought about this a little - are we not *more* likely to see
bug/quirk disparity between implementations of the OpenC906 stuff by
the very nature of being an open-source IP?

Thanks,
Conor.