Re: [PATCH V2 1/2] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add Loongson EIOINTC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 17/02/2023 11:12, Binbin Zhou wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 4:40 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 17/02/2023 07:09, Binbin Zhou wrote:
>>
>>>>> Hi Krzysztof:
>>>>>
>>>>> Allow me to give a brief overview of the current status of eiointc (DT-based):
>>>>>      Loongson-3A series supports eiointc;
>>>>>      Loongson-2K1000 does not support eiointc now;
>>>>>      Loongson-2K0500 supports eiointc, with differences from
>>>>> Loongson-3, e.g. only up to 128 devices are supported;
>>>>>      Loongson-2K2000 supports eiointc, similar to Loongson-3.
>>>>>      ....
>>>>>
>>>>> As can be seen, there is now a bit of confusion in the chip's design of eiointc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The design of eiointc is probably refined step by step with the chip.
>>>>> The same version of eiointc can be used for multiple chips, and the
>>>>> same chip series may also use different versions of eiointc. Low-end
>>>>> chips may use eiointc-2.0, and high-end chips may use eiointc-1.0,
>>>>> depending on the time it's produced.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in the Loongson-2K series I have defined the current state as
>>>>> eiointc-1.0, using the dts property to indicate the maximum number of
>>>>> devices supported by eiointc that can be used directly in the driver.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there are new changes to the design later on, such as the
>>>>> definition of registers, we can call it eiointc-2.0, which can also
>>>>> cover more than one chip.
>>>>
>>>> Just go with SoC-based compatibles. If your version is not specific
>>>> enough, then it is not a good way to represent the hardware.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Krzysztof:
>>>
>>> I have tried to write the following  SoC-based compatibles,  is it fine?
>>>
>>> compatible:
>>>     enum:
>>>       - loongson,ls3a-eiointc  # For MIPS Loongson-3A if necessary.
>>>       - loongson,ls2k0500-eiointc
>>>       - loongson,ls2k200-eiointc
>>
>> Looks good, but didn't you state these are compatible between each
>> other? I have impression there is a common set, so maybe one compatible
>> work on other device with reduced number of devices?
>>
> 
> So far, the difference between ls2k SOCs is the number of devices
> supported by eiointc.
> 
> Do you mean use unified compatible and reuse loongson,eio-num-vecs?
> 
> Would this be possible, e.g.

No. I meant that maybe all these three should have been made compatible.

Best regards,
Krzysztof