[v5,1/2] dt-bindings: timer: thead,c900-aclint-mtimer: separate mtime and mtimecmp regs

The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
separated registers.

The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.

To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.

Also, as T-HEAD aclint only supports mtimecmp, it is unnecessary to
implement the whole aclint spec. To make this binding T-HEAD specific,
only add reg-name for existed register. For details, see the discussion
in the last link.

Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953F9D77FFC76A9D236922DBBB6A@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/
---
 .../bindings/timer/thead,c900-aclint-mtimer.yaml         | 9 ++++++++-
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--
2.43.0

On Mon, Dec 4, 2023 at 5:51 PM Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
> be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
> and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
> separated registers.
>
> The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
> has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
> should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
> regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.
>
> To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
> regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
> for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.
>
> Also, as T-HEAD aclint only supports mtimecmp, it is unnecessary to
> implement the whole aclint spec. To make this binding T-HEAD specific,
> only add reg-name for existed register. For details, see the discussion
> in the last link.
>
> Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
> Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
> Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953F9D77FFC76A9D236922DBBB6A@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/
> ---
>  .../bindings/timer/thead,c900-aclint-mtimer.yaml         | 9 ++++++++-
>  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/thead,c900-aclint-mtimer.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/thead,c900-aclint-mtimer.yaml
> index fbd235650e52..2e92bcdeb423 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/thead,c900-aclint-mtimer.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/timer/thead,c900-aclint-mtimer.yaml
> @@ -17,7 +17,12 @@ properties:
>        - const: thead,c900-aclint-mtimer
>
>    reg:
> -    maxItems: 1
> +    items:
> +      - description: MTIMECMP Registers
> +
> +  reg-names:
> +    items:
> +      - const: mtimecmp
>
>    interrupts-extended:
>      minItems: 1
> @@ -28,6 +33,7 @@ additionalProperties: false
>  required:
>    - compatible
>    - reg
> +  - reg-names
>    - interrupts-extended
>
>  examples:
> @@ -39,5 +45,6 @@ examples:
>                              <&cpu3intc 7>,
>                              <&cpu4intc 7>;
>        reg = <0xac000000 0x00010000>;
> +      reg-names = "mtimecmp";
>      };
>  ...
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Acked-by: Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 05:51:08PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
> be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
> and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
> separated registers.
> 
> The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
> has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
> should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
> regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.
> 
> To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
> regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
> for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.
> 
> Also, as T-HEAD aclint only supports mtimecmp, it is unnecessary to
> implement the whole aclint spec. To make this binding T-HEAD specific,
> only add reg-name for existed register. For details, see the discussion
> in the last link.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
> Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
> Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953F9D77FFC76A9D236922DBBB6A@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/

Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>

Although, I figure it is going to be me that ends up taking it.

Cheers,
Conor.

On 04/12/2023 17:18, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 05:51:08PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
>> The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
>> be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
>> and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
>> separated registers.
>>
>> The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
>> has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
>> should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
>> regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.
>>
>> To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
>> regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
>> for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.
>>
>> Also, as T-HEAD aclint only supports mtimecmp, it is unnecessary to
>> implement the whole aclint spec. To make this binding T-HEAD specific,
>> only add reg-name for existed register. For details, see the discussion
>> in the last link.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
>> Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
>> Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953F9D77FFC76A9D236922DBBB6A@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/
> 
> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> 
> Although, I figure it is going to be me that ends up taking it.

No, I should take it

On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 05:39:09PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 04/12/2023 17:18, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 05:51:08PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
> > > be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
> > > and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
> > > separated registers.
> > > 
> > > The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
> > > has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
> > > should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
> > > regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.
> > > 
> > > To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
> > > regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
> > > for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.
> > > 
> > > Also, as T-HEAD aclint only supports mtimecmp, it is unnecessary to
> > > implement the whole aclint spec. To make this binding T-HEAD specific,
> > > only add reg-name for existed register. For details, see the discussion
> > > in the last link.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
> > > Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
> > > Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
> > > Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953F9D77FFC76A9D236922DBBB6A@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/
> > 
> > Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
> > 
> > Although, I figure it is going to be me that ends up taking it.
> 
> No, I should take it

Sweet, I'd rather you took it than it went via a DT tree :)

On 04/12/2023 10:51, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
> be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
> and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
> separated registers.
> 
> The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
> has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
> should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
> regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.
> 
> To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
> regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
> for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.
> 
> Also, as T-HEAD aclint only supports mtimecmp, it is unnecessary to
> implement the whole aclint spec. To make this binding T-HEAD specific,
> only add reg-name for existed register. For details, see the discussion
> in the last link.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
> Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
> Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953F9D77FFC76A9D236922DBBB6A@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/
> ---

Applied 1/2, thanks

>On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 05:39:09PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 04/12/2023 17:18, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 05:51:08PM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
>>>> The timer registers of aclint don't follow the clint layout and can
>>>> be mapped on any different offset. As sg2042 uses separated timer
>>>> and mswi for its clint, it should follow the aclint spec and have
>>>> separated registers.
>>>>
>>>> The previous patch introduced a new type of T-HEAD aclint timer which
>>>> has clint timer layout. Although it has the clint timer layout, it
>>>> should follow the aclint spec and uses the separated mtime and mtimecmp
>>>> regs. So a ABI change is needed to make the timer fit the aclint spec.
>>>>
>>>> To make T-HEAD aclint timer more closer to the aclint spec, use
>>>> regs-names to represent the mtimecmp register, which can avoid hack
>>>> for unsupport mtime register of T-HEAD aclint timer.
>>>>
>>>> Also, as T-HEAD aclint only supports mtimecmp, it is unnecessary to
>>>> implement the whole aclint spec. To make this binding T-HEAD specific,
>>>> only add reg-name for existed register. For details, see the discussion
>>>> in the last link.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Inochi Amaoto <inochiama@outlook.com>
>>>> Fixes: 4734449f7311 ("dt-bindings: timer: Add Sophgo sg2042 CLINT timer")
>>>> Link: https://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/opensbi/2023-October/005693.html
>>>> Link: https://github.com/riscv/riscv-aclint/blob/main/riscv-aclint.adoc
>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/IA1PR20MB4953F9D77FFC76A9D236922DBBB6A@IA1PR20MB4953.namprd20.prod.outlook.com/
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
>>>
>>> Although, I figure it is going to be me that ends up taking it.
>>
>> No, I should take it
>
>Sweet, I'd rather you took it than it went via a DT tree :)
>

Thanks you both for taking this. This is good news for me.