mbox series

[v2,0/9] arch: riscv: add board and SoC DT file support

Message ID 1607403341-57214-1-git-send-email-yash.shah@sifive.com
Headers show
Series arch: riscv: add board and SoC DT file support | expand

Message

Yash Shah Dec. 8, 2020, 4:55 a.m. UTC
Start board support by adding initial support for the SiFive FU740 SoC
and the first development board that uses it, the SiFive HiFive
Unmatched A00.

Boot-tested on Linux 5.10-rc4 on a HiFive Unmatched A00 board using the
U-boot and OpenSBI.

This patch series is dependent on Zong's Patchset[0]. The patchset also
adds two new nodes in dtsi file. The binding documentation patch
for these nodes are already posted on the mailing list[1][2].

[0]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20201130082330.77268-4-zong.li@sifive.com/T/#u
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/1606714984-16593-1-git-send-email-yash.shah@sifive.com/T/#t
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20201126030043.67390-1-zong.li@sifive.com/T/#u

Changes in v2:
- The dt bindings patch is split into several individual patches.
- Expand the full list for compatible strings in i2c-ocores.txt

Yash Shah (9):
  dt-bindings: riscv: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
  dt-bindings: spi: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
  dt-bindings: pwm: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
  dt-bindings: serial: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740
    SoC
  dt-bindings: gpio: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
  dt-bindings: i2c: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
  riscv: dts: add initial support for the SiFive FU740-C000 SoC
  dt-bindings: riscv: Update YAML doc to support SiFive HiFive Unmatched
    board
  riscv: dts: add initial board data for the SiFive HiFive Unmatched

 .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/sifive,gpio.yaml      |   4 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-ocores.txt         |   8 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-sifive.yaml        |   9 +-
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.yaml  |   6 +
 .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/sifive.yaml          |  17 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml  |   4 +-
 .../devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-sifive.yaml        |  10 +-
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/Makefile                |   3 +-
 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi         | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++
 .../riscv/boot/dts/sifive/hifive-unmatched-a00.dts | 253 ++++++++++++++++++
 10 files changed, 590 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi
 create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/hifive-unmatched-a00.dts

Comments

Mark Brown Dec. 8, 2020, 5:11 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 8 Dec 2020 10:25:32 +0530, Yash Shah wrote:
> Start board support by adding initial support for the SiFive FU740 SoC
> and the first development board that uses it, the SiFive HiFive
> Unmatched A00.
> 
> Boot-tested on Linux 5.10-rc4 on a HiFive Unmatched A00 board using the
> U-boot and OpenSBI.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/spi.git for-next

Thanks!

[2/9] dt-bindings: spi: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
      commit: 76347344c522da78be29403dda81463ffae2bc99

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark
Palmer Dabbelt Dec. 22, 2020, 4:38 a.m. UTC | #2
On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 20:55:32 PST (-0800), yash.shah@sifive.com wrote:
> Start board support by adding initial support for the SiFive FU740 SoC
> and the first development board that uses it, the SiFive HiFive
> Unmatched A00.
>
> Boot-tested on Linux 5.10-rc4 on a HiFive Unmatched A00 board using the
> U-boot and OpenSBI.
>
> This patch series is dependent on Zong's Patchset[0]. The patchset also
> adds two new nodes in dtsi file. The binding documentation patch
> for these nodes are already posted on the mailing list[1][2].
>
> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20201130082330.77268-4-zong.li@sifive.com/T/#u
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/1606714984-16593-1-git-send-email-yash.shah@sifive.com/T/#t
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20201126030043.67390-1-zong.li@sifive.com/T/#u
>
> Changes in v2:
> - The dt bindings patch is split into several individual patches.
> - Expand the full list for compatible strings in i2c-ocores.txt
>
> Yash Shah (9):
>   dt-bindings: riscv: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: spi: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: pwm: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: serial: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740
>     SoC
>   dt-bindings: gpio: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: i2c: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   riscv: dts: add initial support for the SiFive FU740-C000 SoC
>   dt-bindings: riscv: Update YAML doc to support SiFive HiFive Unmatched
>     board
>   riscv: dts: add initial board data for the SiFive HiFive Unmatched
>
>  .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/sifive,gpio.yaml      |   4 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-ocores.txt         |   8 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-sifive.yaml        |   9 +-
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.yaml  |   6 +
>  .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/sifive.yaml          |  17 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml  |   4 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-sifive.yaml        |  10 +-
>  arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/Makefile                |   3 +-
>  arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi         | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  .../riscv/boot/dts/sifive/hifive-unmatched-a00.dts | 253 ++++++++++++++++++
>  10 files changed, 590 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi
>  create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/hifive-unmatched-a00.dts

Aside from that question about the i2c bug these look good to me.  I don't see
any Ack/Review on the DT side of things, though.  If you want to take them
through a DT tree that's fine for me, I'll leave them in my inbox for now and
if nobody says anything I'll look a bit more and take them for 5.12.

Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmerdabbelt@google.com>
Palmer Dabbelt Jan. 8, 2021, 3:12 a.m. UTC | #3
On Mon, 07 Dec 2020 20:55:32 PST (-0800), yash.shah@sifive.com wrote:
> Start board support by adding initial support for the SiFive FU740 SoC
> and the first development board that uses it, the SiFive HiFive
> Unmatched A00.
>
> Boot-tested on Linux 5.10-rc4 on a HiFive Unmatched A00 board using the
> U-boot and OpenSBI.
>
> This patch series is dependent on Zong's Patchset[0]. The patchset also
> adds two new nodes in dtsi file. The binding documentation patch
> for these nodes are already posted on the mailing list[1][2].
>
> [0]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20201130082330.77268-4-zong.li@sifive.com/T/#u
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/1606714984-16593-1-git-send-email-yash.shah@sifive.com/T/#t
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/20201126030043.67390-1-zong.li@sifive.com/T/#u
>
> Changes in v2:
> - The dt bindings patch is split into several individual patches.
> - Expand the full list for compatible strings in i2c-ocores.txt
>
> Yash Shah (9):
>   dt-bindings: riscv: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: spi: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: pwm: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: serial: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740
>     SoC
>   dt-bindings: gpio: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   dt-bindings: i2c: Update DT binding docs to support SiFive FU740 SoC
>   riscv: dts: add initial support for the SiFive FU740-C000 SoC
>   dt-bindings: riscv: Update YAML doc to support SiFive HiFive Unmatched
>     board
>   riscv: dts: add initial board data for the SiFive HiFive Unmatched
>
>  .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/sifive,gpio.yaml      |   4 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/i2c/i2c-ocores.txt         |   8 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/pwm/pwm-sifive.yaml        |   9 +-
>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/cpus.yaml  |   6 +
>  .../devicetree/bindings/riscv/sifive.yaml          |  17 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/serial/sifive-serial.yaml  |   4 +-
>  .../devicetree/bindings/spi/spi-sifive.yaml        |  10 +-
>  arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/Makefile                |   3 +-
>  arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi         | 293 +++++++++++++++++++++
>  .../riscv/boot/dts/sifive/hifive-unmatched-a00.dts | 253 ++++++++++++++++++
>  10 files changed, 590 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/fu740-c000.dtsi
>  create mode 100644 arch/riscv/boot/dts/sifive/hifive-unmatched-a00.dts

Thanks, these are on for-next.  There was one checkpatch warning about the
missing ISSI device tree entry, but we already had that in the FU540 so I'm OK
letting it slide.

I'm also not really sure this is the right way to do this sort of thing: most
of the patches here really aren't RISC-V things, they're SiFive SOC things.
Some of these patches have been picked up by other trees, but I just took the
rest.  I'm not all that happy about taking DT bindings for things like GPIO or
PWM bindings, but as they're pretty small I'm OK doing it in this instance.

In the future it would really be better to split these up and land them via
their respectitve trees, rather than trying to do all the SOC stuff over here.
I know that can be a headache, but we have that SOC group for this purpose to
try and keep things a bit more together -- I know it was a while ago and there
really hasn't been much SOC activity on the RISC-V side of things so maybe it
hasn't been that widley discussed, but that was really designed to solve these
sorts of problems.