[RFC PATCH v3 05/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: Add ACLINT MSWI and SSWI bindings

[Anup Patel]

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 6:04 AM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:56 AM Anup Patel <anup at brainfault.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 1, 2021 at 6:54 AM Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 09:47:23AM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
> > > > We add DT bindings documentation for the ACLINT MSWI and SSWI
> > > > devices found on RISC-V SOCs.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel at wdc.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  .../riscv,aclint-swi.yaml                     | 95 +++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 95 insertions(+)
> > > >  create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml
> > > > new file mode 100644
> > > > index 000000000000..68563259ae24
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
> > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause)
> > > > +%YAML 1.2
> > > > +---
> > > > +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/interrupt-controller/riscv,aclint-swi.yaml#
> > > > +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +title: RISC-V ACLINT Software Interrupt Devices
> > > > +
> > > > +maintainers:
> > > > +  - Anup Patel <anup.patel at wdc.com>
> > > > +
> > > > +description:
> > > > +  RISC-V SOCs include an implementation of the M-level software interrupt
> > > > +  (MSWI) device and the S-level software interrupt (SSWI) device defined
> > > > +  in the RISC-V Advanced Core Local Interruptor (ACLINT) specification.
> > > > +
> > > > +  The ACLINT MSWI and SSWI devices are documented in the RISC-V ACLINT
> > > > +  specification located at
> > > > +  https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc.
> > > > +
> > > > +  The ACLINT MSWI and SSWI devices directly connect to the M-level and
> > > > +  S-level software interrupt lines of various HARTs (or CPUs) respectively
> > > > +  so the RISC-V per-HART (or per-CPU) local interrupt controller is the
> > > > +  parent interrupt controller for the ACLINT MSWI and SSWI devices.
> > > > +
> > > > +allOf:
> > > > +  - $ref: /schemas/interrupt-controller.yaml#
> > > > +
> > > > +properties:
> > > > +  compatible:
> > > > +    oneOf:
> > > > +      - items:
> > > > +        - enum:
> > > > +          - riscv,aclint-mswi
> > > > +
> > > > +      - items:
> > > > +        - enum:
> > > > +          - riscv,aclint-sswi
> > >
> > > All this can be just:
> > >
> > > enum:
> > >   - riscv,aclint-mswi
> > >   - riscv,aclint-sswi
> > >
> > > However...
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +    description:
> > > > +      For ACLINT MSWI devices, it should be "riscv,aclint-mswi" OR
> > > > +      "<vendor>,<chip>-aclint-mswi".
> > > > +      For ACLINT SSWI devices, it should be "riscv,aclint-sswi" OR
> > > > +      "<vendor>,<chip>-aclint-sswi".
> > >
> > > s/OR/AND/
> > >
> > > There must be a compatible for the implementation. Unless RiscV
> > > implementations of specs are complete describing all clocks, power
> > > domains, resets, etc. and are quirk free.
> > >
> > > But don't write free form constraints...
> >
> > It is possible that quite a few implementations (QEMU, FPGAs, and
> > other simulators) will not require implementation specific compatible
> > strings. Should we still mandate implementation specific compatible
> > strings in DTS for such cases?
>
> No, but the schema says you only have those cases. Are there not any
> actual implementations?

All existing RISC-V boards have SiFive CLINT and ACLINT is backward
compatible with SiFive CLINT so we do have actual implementations.

None of the existing RISC-V boards have special clocks, power domain,
resets etc for these devices.

>
> Minimally make "<vendor>,<chip>-aclint-mswi" into a schema pattern for
> the first entry and perhaps a note to replace with actual strings when
> there are some. It's ultimately up to the RiscV maintainers to require
> SoC specific compatibles here. Allowing a generic one alone makes that
> harder because the schema can't enforce it.

Can we have a common compatible string for QEMU, FPGAs, etc ?

For example,
compatible = "riscv,generic-aclint-mswi", "riscv,aclint-mswi";

Regards,
Anup

>
> Rob