[PATCH v19 00/17] RISC-V Kendryte K210 support improvements

Palmer Dabbelt palmer at dabbelt.com
Fri Feb 19 02:20:55 EST 2021

>On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:54:03 PST (-0800), Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 2021/02/19 15:29, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Feb 2021 21:02:13 PST (-0800), Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> This series of patches improves support for boards based on the Canaan
>>> Kendryte K210 RISC-V dual core SoC. Minimal support for this SoC is
>>> already included in the kernel. These patches complete it, enabling
>>> support for most peripherals present on the SoC as well as introducing
>>> device trees for the various K210 boards available on the market today
>>> from SiPeed and Kendryte.
>>> The patches here are the remaining patches not yet applied.
>>> Patch 1 adds the SoC clock driver.
>> I don't see a Review or Ack for this one, so I haven't taken it.  Not sure if I
>> just missed it or if it's going in through the clock tree.
>Stephen sent his reviewed-by. It is on lore:
>There are a few additional nits he pointed out but I will send an incremental
>patch for these later. I think this patch needs to go through the risc-v tree
>since it touches the sysctl driver too.

Thanks, it's on for-next (and in order).

>>> Patches 2 to 9 add and update device tree bindings documentation to
>>> document the K210 device tree files. In particular, patch 2 and 3
>>> define compatible strings used for the SoC CPU and for the K210 based
>>> boards supported.
>>> Patches 10 to 15 update the existing K210 base device tree and add new
>>> device tree files for several K210 based boards: MAIX Bit, MAIXDUINO,
>>> MAIX Dock and MAIX Go boards from SiPeed and the KD233 development
>>> board from Canaan.
>> Looks like I already have patch 10.
>How come ? This version is the fixed one which removes undocumented dt nodes.
>Did you queue an older version ?

Yep -- I'd just spot checked some and didn't see a difference, but I guess I
didn't look closly enough.  It's fixed now.


>> The other DT files have an entry for a microphone with an undocumented
>> compatible string, which triggers checkpatch.  I've removed it, along with the
>> audio entry that references it.  I don't really have an opinion on how that
>> stuff is in the DT, just that we need to document whatever we put in there.  If
>> it breaks something I'm happy to swap it out for another version, I'm not
>> planning on sending it up until next week (I'm sening a PR this week, just with
>> some older stuff).
>Works for me. Thanks.
>> Thanks!
>Damien Le Moal
>Western Digital Research

More information about the linux-riscv mailing list