Hi Leo, On Thu, 2025-12-04 at 15:45 +0800, Leo Liang wrote: > EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know > the content is safe > > Hi Jamie, > > On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:38:42PM +0000, Jamie Gibbons wrote: > > [EXTERNAL MAIL] > > > > From: Conor Dooley <[email protected]> > > > > PolarFire SoC needs a custom implementation of top_of_ram(), so stop > > using the generic CPU & create a custom CPU instead. > > > > Signed-off-by: Conor Dooley <[email protected]> > > --- > > arch/riscv/Kconfig | 1 + > > arch/riscv/cpu/mpfs/Kconfig | 16 +++++++++++ > > arch/riscv/cpu/mpfs/Makefile | 6 ++++ > > arch/riscv/cpu/mpfs/cpu.c | 22 +++++++++++++++ > > arch/riscv/cpu/mpfs/dram.c | 38 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > arch/riscv/include/asm/arch-mpfs/clk.h | 8 ++++++ > > board/microchip/mpfs_generic/Kconfig | 4 +-- > > 7 files changed, 93 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/cpu/mpfs/Kconfig > > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/cpu/mpfs/Makefile > > create mode 100644 arch/riscv/cpu/mpfs/cpu.c > > The cpu.c file only contains "cleanup_before_linux" and seems > identical > with the one provided in arch/riscv/cpu/generic/cpu.c. > > Other than that, LGTM. > > If you don't mind, I could fix this on my side that you don't need to > resend the patchset again. > > Reviewed-by: Leo Yu-Chi Liang <[email protected]>
Thank you for your response, review and feedback. Regarding 'mpfs/cpu.c', you're corect that it is currently identical to the generic implementation. Our intent was to provide a placeholder for any future Polarfire-specific logic and also assumed it was manditory, but if duplication is unneccessary, I'm happy for you to adjust as you see fit. In other words, if U-Boot prefers to avoid duplication and this file is not mandatory for build or architextural reasons per CPU implementation, than please go ahead and use the generic version. Thanks, Jamie.
