[PATCH v4 7/8] soc: starfive: Add socinfo driver for JHB100 SoC

[Conor Dooley]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2026 at 10:37:16AM +0000, Changhuang Liang wrote:
> Hi, Conor
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2026 at 05:36:19AM +0000, Changhuang Liang wrote:
> > 
> > > > On Sat, Aug 08, 2026 at 06:50:53PM -0700, Changhuang Liang wrote:
> > 
> > > > > +static int __init starfive_socinfo_init(void) {
> > > > > +	struct soc_device_attribute *attrs;
> > > > > +	struct soc_device *soc_dev;
> > > > > +	const char *machine = NULL;
> > > > > +	struct device_node *np;
> > > > > +	struct regmap *regmap;
> > > > > +	char rev_char;
> > > > > +	u32 rev_id;
> > > > > +	int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > +	np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL,
> > > > > +"starfive,jhb100-sys0-syscon");
> > > >
> > > > Remind me again why this is not just probed as an mfd cell from the
> > > > syscon driver?
> > > >
> > > > (Hint: please put this info in the commit message).
> > >
> > > The discussion result with Krzysztof at that time is recorded here:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260405-strong-watchful-marmot-fdfad6@quo
> > > ll/
> > >
> > > One register should not be treated as a separate device node.
> > 
> > That's a different question. In the case of an mfd cell probed from the syscon
> > driver there would be no devicetree modifications required compared to what
> > you have now. e.g. sg2044-topsys.c
> 
> This seems feasible, and I can introduce this modification in the next version.


In fact, you don't even need the mfd cell, because your driver is going
to be in drivers/soc/starfive anyway? You can just bind directly to the
sys0 syscon I think.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20260812/f9879797/attachment.sig>