Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: hisilicon: Add binding for L3 cache controller

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 9:13 AM Leizhen (ThunderTown)
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 2021/1/13 15:44, Leizhen (ThunderTown) wrote:

quoted

On 2021/1/12 21:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 1:35 PM Leizhen (ThunderTown)
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On 2021/1/12 16:46, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 2:56 AM Zhen Lei [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/arm/hisilicon/l3cache.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: Hisilicon L3 cache controller
+
+maintainers:
+  - Wei Xu [off-list ref]
+
+description: |
+  The Hisilicon L3 outer cache controller supports a maximum of 36-bit physical
+  addresses. The data cached in the L3 outer cache can be operated based on the
+  physical address range or the entire cache.
+
+properties:
+  compatible:
+    items:
+      - const: hisilicon,l3cache
+

The compatible string needs to be a little more specific, I'm sure
you cannot guarantee that this is the only L3 cache controller ever
designed in the past or future by HiSilicon.

Normally when you have an IP block that is itself unnamed but that is specific
to one or a few SoCs but that has no na, the convention is to include the name
of the first SoC that contained it.

Right, thanks for your suggestion, I will rename it to "hisilicon,hi1381-l3cache"
and "hisilicon,hi1215-l3cache".

Sorry, Just received a response from the hardware developers, the SoC names need to
be changed:
hi1381 --> kunpeng509
hi1215 --> kunpeng506

So I want to rename the compatible string to "hisilicon,kunpeng-l3v1", Kunpeng L3

I thought about it. Let's name it "hisilicon,kunpeng-l3cache", and then add v2 in
the future. Maybe the SoC name is changed later, and v2 is not required.

I would prefer the more specific name to be listed as well. You can
use the generic
"hisilicon,kunpeng-l3cache" as the key that the driver uses, but
please also include
the chip specific one here. We tend to use the chip identifiers
(hi1381, ...), but if
the marketing names (kunpeng509, ...) are now what they are known as in the
data sheet, then use that. The problem with marketing names is that they are
more often unrelated to the technology underneath. It's possible that there
might be e.g. kunpeng507 chip that sold to the same customers but very different
internally from kunpeng506/kunpeng509. This also happens with the chip numbers,
but those tend to be more stable (at least for other manufacturers).

       Arnd

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel