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=-12.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED 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 2F7CBC43610 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:02:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE5B32086B for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 19:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sifive.com header.i=@sifive.com header.b="FX/2xae8" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DE5B32086B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=sifive.com 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 S1726705AbeK0F5z (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:57:55 -0500 Received: from mail-pf1-f195.google.com ([209.85.210.195]:45510 "EHLO mail-pf1-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726140AbeK0F5y (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:57:54 -0500 Received: by mail-pf1-f195.google.com with SMTP id g62so7018193pfd.12 for ; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:02:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sifive.com; s=google; h=date:subject:in-reply-to:cc:from:to:message-id:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=uBNHJaDJQCRKJOepZeX1Aj3ggaGlI29cAcH02bAD7S4=; b=FX/2xae8ixStDERZwFotkIXhj1jU5TAYxOfmKmubnOQHcyFc7ojaulhwDrWB/LDIPc efJu1OmakgEDTels6cggWZw9/QGAeKaH5pq3AMl+ZCA4+ffgvjYF3zg3IsNqwdae4WlI qSstVsjiE/C+eLe4K5kRQtcUT4ZvbwVBx3EH2lLnYNpNYIURiyeIdWPoVcrG8nurKkrU smMK+q6cvGYCu2RC89bLKSvHnTzA1hHUOVkEQkQGHhNNydXwKOWVKzg5oVrfC5lZCs3a QV1wxXT8u1cKQrDseuT7Sa2pXB1tiNAp+QLMd6txbn/iorpdgD/aEcbroT5alSyAc1Y8 6eZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:subject:in-reply-to:cc:from:to:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=uBNHJaDJQCRKJOepZeX1Aj3ggaGlI29cAcH02bAD7S4=; b=KNzpTta6NZ5B62i5xYX3DlOeXRLbYGz7URipdA7az04DGbbcTgznZMYFH5CCBt2aCU +4qT9672WzivYNFFg/I4j7XqKTvN+7qZASLPV11J3kRwvdFUIukUN+ZYNcPOyhRuKDBl MrFRptLF5GkK1bDORBj4RDtE8YLJ/W+zZGP9ZSMv2S8cmzf8kEtuxshlwyhaDJO99p6u vR3JrcWcBykea2+jhPNJdIX5NY7EjD1uHeX5VngjNiK7fzBj70QTokuH82jR20HiAF0O uTHcYbi7nrSq91lBInMwv4bQTM5+Ksb0jMWbbund7IGNTrSiny0WYjkh3HUzFduzsCXe /Iyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWb9aFtqGkZPFEl+zEIBGH0vppz6uHZz6S6t1Eq4j9canfGa4CYF pjwDdcgM5lsgyoFTJOXr2HXzIg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/VzvgObLSUQry+IQsGDdhC9mirv/khMibS1mZ8bX5FMLqXMCpQS4IYWFGHq2shGmwTU6R55AQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:e19:: with SMTP id d25mr26002599pgl.272.1543258971600; Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:02:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([12.206.222.5]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w136sm1371764pfd.169.2018.11.26.11.02.50 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:02:50 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 11:02:50 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Original-Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2018 10:56:08 PST (-0800) Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: sifive: describe sifive-blocks versioning In-Reply-To: CC: Paul Walmsley , robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com, paul@pwsan.com, Megan Wachs , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Wesley Terpstra , linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org From: Palmer Dabbelt To: atish.patra@wdc.com Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 (MHng) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 21 Nov 2018 17:33:02 PST (-0800), atish.patra@wdc.com wrote: > On 11/21/18 5:07 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> >> For IP blocks that are generated from the public, open-source >> sifive-blocks repository, describe the version numbering policy >> that its maintainers intend to use, upon request from Rob >> Herring . >> >> Cc: Rob Herring >> Cc: Palmer Dabbelt >> Cc: Megan Wachs >> Cc: Wesley Terpstra >> Cc: Mark Rutland >> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org >> Cc: linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org >> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley >> Signed-off-by: Paul Walmsley >> --- >> >> Hi Rob, please let me know if this document works with your >> requirements, or if some changes are needed. - Paul >> >> .../sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt | 38 +++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..b899e5c6e00c >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt > > It should be be under > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/riscv/sifive/sifive-blocks-ip-versioning.txt > ? > >> @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ >> +DT compatible string versioning for SiFive open-source IP blocks >> + >> +This document describes the version specification for DT "compatible" >> +strings for open-source SiFive IP blocks. HDL for these IP blocks >> +can be found in this public repository: >> + >> +https://github.com/sifive/sifive-blocks >> + >> +IP block-specific DT compatible strings are contained within the HDL, >> +in the form "sifive,". >> + >> +An example is "sifive,uart0" from: >> + >> +https://github.com/sifive/sifive-blocks/blob/master/src/main/scala/devices/uart/UART.scala#L43 >> + >> +Until these IP blocks (or IP integration) support version >> +autodiscovery, the maintainers of these IP blocks intend to increment > > /s/autodiscovery/auto discovery > >> +the suffixed number in the compatible string whenever the software >> +interface to these IP blocks changes, or when the functionality of the >> +underlying IP blocks changes in a way that software should be aware of. >> + >> +Driver developers can use compatible string "match" values such as >> +"sifive,uart0" to indicate that their driver is compatible with the >> +register interface and functionality associated with the relevant >> +upstream sifive-blocks commits. It is expected that most drivers will >> +match on these IP block-specific compatible strings. >> + >> +DT data authors, when writing data for a particular SoC, should >> +continue to specify an SoC-specific compatible string value, such as >> +"sifive,fu540-c000-uart". This way, if SoC-specific >> +integration-specific bug fixes or workarounds are needed, the kernel >> +or other system software can match on this string to apply them. The >> +IP block-specific compatible string (such as "sifive,uart0") should >> +then be specified as a subsequent value. >> + >> +An example of this style: >> + >> + compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-uart", "sifive,uart0"; >> > > Just for the sake of completion, should this document also specify what > should be the style of any possible closed IP as well? Let's restrict ourselves to the open-source IP for now, as versioning the closed source stuff is a bit of a different problem -- when everyone can see the source it's easier because we can all agree on exactly what a version string means. For the closed source stuff we currently have just the chip-specific strings, as all that stuff is very chip specific (all sorts of special clocking constraints). Essentially you'll have to just trust us as to what's compatible with what -- FWIW, since this is mostly driven by the chip process we really just have to trust the hardware designers, so we're kind of in the same boat (though we can at least peek under the covers if we want to). Any versioning scheme here is doubly complicated because it's closed source and it's chip specific, so trying to match this up with the open source stuff seems like too much work. For now we can at least get everyone on the same page as to how we're versioning the open-source blocks, which is more important because anyone can build a chip with those so we need a well defined scheme.