From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751732AbeAZU5p convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:57:45 -0500
Received: from hermes.aosc.io ([199.195.250.187]:40073 "EHLO hermes.aosc.io"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751256AbeAZU5o (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 26 Jan 2018 15:57:44 -0500
From: Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io>
To: Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 04:57:33 +0800
Message-ID: <3527360.oZpfb5Pa1p@ice-x220i>
In-Reply-To: <20180125153520.lxcfvh3yvi36uiux@flea.lan>
References: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <14593819.uISRktVE4V@ice-x220i> <20180125153520.lxcfvh3yvi36uiux@flea.lan>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

在 2018年1月25日星期四 CST 下午11:35:20，Maxime Ripard 写道：
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:10:34PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > 在 2018年1月22日星期一 CST 下午8:14:35，Maxime Ripard 写道：
> > 
> > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:26AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > > > This is the RFC initial patchset for the "new" Allwinner SUNIV ARM9
> > > > SoC.
> > > > 
> > > > The same die is packaged differently, come with different co-packaged
> > > > DRAM or shipped with different SDK; and then made many model names:
> > > > F23,
> > > > F25, F1C100A, F1C100S, F1C200S, F1C500, F1C600, R6, etc. These SoCs
> > > > all
> > > > share a common feature set and are packaged similarly (eLQFP128 for
> > > > SoCs
> > > > without co-packaged DRAM, QFN88 for with DRAM). As their's no
> > > > functionality hidden on the QFN88 models (except DRAM interface not
> > > > exported), it's not clever to differentiate them. So I will use suniv
> > > > as
> > > > common name of all these SoCs.
> > > 
> > > Where is that suniv prefix coming from?
> > 
> > The BSP (Melis and Linux). (e.g. "libs/suniv" directory of the Melis SDK
> > and "arch/arm/boot/dts/sunivw1p1.dtsi" in the Linux SDK)
> 
> Do you have a link to that BSP?

https://pan.baidu.com/s/1rar5YtI

There's Melis (F1C100s) and Linux (F1C600) BSP.

> 
> > > You should really answer two questions here:
> > >   - Are you able to predict whether you'll find an SoC part of that
> > >   
> > >     family in the future that derives a bit and will need a compatible
> > >     of its own?
> > >   
> > >   - Are you able to predict which quirks we'll need along the way to
> > >   
> > >     support all the SoCs you've listed there?
> > > 
> > > If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100%
> > > certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible.
> > > 
> > > Which doesn't prevent you from sharing as much as possible the DT like
> > > we did between the A10s and the A13 for example.
> > 
> > So the suniv-f1c100s.dtsi will still be kept empty and all peripherals
> > known should go through suniv.dtsi.
> 
> Sorry if I wasn't really clear. You can totally keep the current DT
> structure if that makes sense (and judging by what you're saying, it
> does.), but the compatibles should have the SoC name in it.
> 
> Maxime