Hi Jessica,

Thank you for your review.

On 07/01/2025 12:56, Jessica Clarke wrote:

On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 04:14:31PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jan 3, 2025 at 12:16 PM Vincenzo Frascino
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

+       cpus {
+               #address-cells = <2>;
+               #size-cells = <0>;
+
+               cpu0: cpu@0 {
+                       compatible = "arm,neoverse-n1";

I'm pretty sure the N1 doesn't support CHERI/morello. Perhaps
"arm,neoverse-n1-morello" if we want to capture what it is derived
from and since "arm,morello" is taken already.

Rainier is the codename of the core itself, and Morello LLVM recognises
-mcpu=rainier not -mcpu=morello (there's -march=morello instead), so
perhaps it should really be "arm,rainier". Though SMBIOS reports it as
Morello-R0P1 so it may be best to use "arm,morello" here.

We agree on the concept. It should either be "arm,rainier" or "arm,morello-r0p1"
if we want to capture the information of SMBIOS. When we reach consensus I will
update the patches accordingly (Please have a look at my reply to Rob).

The real problem is that the board compatible has changed to include a
generic "arm,morello" node, with the argument that a v2 board could
appear. So why not instead change *that* to be something like:

  compatible = "arm,morello-sdp-v1", "arm,morello-sdp";

Then you can use "arm,morello" here for the cores.>

The name morello on its own is too overloaded of meaning if we do not specify to
what we are referring to.

Though some of this may depend on what the FVP's DTS looks like; is it
going to claim to be a Morello SDP, or does there need to be a common
denominator compatible beneath that it can use?

I still did not start bringing up to speed the DTS for FVP but I think that we
should distinguish in between SDP and FVP since not everything is the same,
hence it should have something similar to:

	compatible = "arm,morello-fvp", "arm,morello";

Please CC me on future versions of this series.

Will do.

Jess

-- 
Regards,
Vincenzo