From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2BF1C46464 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:38:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8FF121BC7 for ; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 06:38:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A8FF121BC7 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=lst.de Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728244AbeHIJBj (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 05:01:39 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:41675 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727563AbeHIJBj (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Aug 2018 05:01:39 -0400 Received: by newverein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 0FFAE68D60; Thu, 9 Aug 2018 08:43:54 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 08:43:53 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Palmer Dabbelt Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, atish.patra@wdc.com, Christoph Hellwig , tglx@linutronix.de, jason@lakedaemon.net, marc.zyngier@arm.com, mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, aou@eecs.berkeley.edu, anup@brainfault.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, shorne@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC documentation Message-ID: <20180809064353.GA19566@lst.de> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:29:17PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> So I guess to answer my question, you are just making up version >> numbers. Unless you are doing the IP verilog too, don't do that. > > Well, in this case my proposal would be that we change the hardware team's > versioning scheme to match whatever we decide on the versioning scheme > should be as a part of this discussion. I proposed accepting whatever > versioning scheme is decided upon hereto the hardware team before > discussing changing the naming scheme and they agreed to do so. > > So we're really in the drivers' seat here. > >> If you want to use just 'sifive,plic' then I'm fine with that. I've >> given you the potential problems with that and they will be your >> problems to deal with. Maybe you'll get lucky. Plus it won't be a >> problem for the 1st implementation. > > I'd prefer to have some versioning scheme, that's why I'm talking so much > about this :). I really just want to learn how to get the right one, as > I'm quite new to all this and we'll have many of these. Based on the discussion so far I think we should settle for sifive,plic + an actual implementation string suggested by Palmer and Andrew. This is what I have right now: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/riscv.git/commitdiff/1972707029f8f1216dbe14bd7791295e4b37f560 and which I'd like to send out before it is too late. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hch@lst.de (Christoph Hellwig) Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 08:43:53 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 03/11] dt-bindings: interrupt-controller: RISC-V PLIC documentation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20180809064353.GA19566@lst.de> To: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-riscv.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 11:29:17PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >> So I guess to answer my question, you are just making up version >> numbers. Unless you are doing the IP verilog too, don't do that. > > Well, in this case my proposal would be that we change the hardware team's > versioning scheme to match whatever we decide on the versioning scheme > should be as a part of this discussion. I proposed accepting whatever > versioning scheme is decided upon hereto the hardware team before > discussing changing the naming scheme and they agreed to do so. > > So we're really in the drivers' seat here. > >> If you want to use just 'sifive,plic' then I'm fine with that. I've >> given you the potential problems with that and they will be your >> problems to deal with. Maybe you'll get lucky. Plus it won't be a >> problem for the 1st implementation. > > I'd prefer to have some versioning scheme, that's why I'm talking so much > about this :). I really just want to learn how to get the right one, as > I'm quite new to all this and we'll have many of these. Based on the discussion so far I think we should settle for sifive,plic + an actual implementation string suggested by Palmer and Andrew. This is what I have right now: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/riscv.git/commitdiff/1972707029f8f1216dbe14bd7791295e4b37f560 and which I'd like to send out before it is too late.