[lowrisc-dev] Re: [sw-dev] Is a de facto standard memory map helpful or harmful?

Karsten Merker merker at debian.org
Wed Jul 13 19:21:22 BST 2016

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 02:16:24PM +0100, Alex Bradbury wrote:

> On 13 July 2016 at 13:59, Krste Asanovic <krste at berkeley.edu> wrote:

> > Config string is supposed to provide this information.  We have code to
> > parse and package this for Linux.  OS ports should all use this and the
> > SBI to avoid binding to absolute physical addressees.
> Great, I suspected we are thinking along similar lines. What actually
> triggered this email is I saw the SiFive "U5 Coreplex Series Manual"
> explicitly details the memory map. I've thought previously about doing
> this with our current lowRISC implementation (and indeed working with
> other groups to try to agree on this), but then wondered whether in a
> world of device tree and similar systems such as the proposed RISC-V
> configuration string this is necessary or beneficial.


is there some documentation available regarding this "RISC-V
configuration string"?  Alex' comment sounds like it is intended
as an alternative to device-tree, in which case I wonder a bit
whether adding yet-another-hardware-description-format instead of
using device-tree makes sense respectively which are the
advantages of a new hardware description format compared to

Most popular non-UEFI+ACPI-using Linux platforms either have
converged towards using device-tree or are in the process of
doing so; even UEFI supports using device-tree instead of ACPI
tables.  U-boot has moved to device-tree for its device model and
in the BSD world to my knowledge at least FreeBSD has device-tree
support (I don't know about the other BSD variants).

Gem. Par. 28 Abs. 4 Bundesdatenschutzgesetz widerspreche ich der Nutzung
sowie der Weitergabe meiner personenbezogenen Daten für Zwecke der
Werbung sowie der Markt- oder Meinungsforschung.

More information about the lowrisc-dev mailing list