From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S935077AbcIOMBY (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:01:24 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:59430 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934977AbcIOMBS (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2016 08:01:18 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Peter Griffin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, patrice.chotard@st.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform support Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:00:36 +0200 Message-ID: <10792443.jxCOopyCy4@wuerfel> User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-34-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> References: <1473859677-9231-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <7524458.uFhxDUCqEo@wuerfel> <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:MkJpexMCtt2KYUJnxWkpWgB2u4de2xyssJzOzTuayZWt6C3hjqP ir9xujFkHN1iIay6f1Dmr3+HXuqwcw5ZfTJ7t22xLCAEKHEGatd1oytgbfuoriVyKvvqcm2 lPx1XxBDjo0RaH75C5UAA1xts6e1Czis2L0mfVw//a5hjJu28GNqeBaCt1GotLDnV+J3uf7 KTRCwiZKj8Rd7njgxBwcQ== X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:LPaSk0uDDJg=:DF224J8tGhlY37PH895JCN oWN71KisUXuXHX5O9N1yJy/6b7uAulD7bcSsBviNRiqEZtA0FpWzpVWxhX1iPoBh2yDoYmGQE t9kzjMjYjSnaaIkJtN0ePnfn1IqvpCcmZQiwn4aTIPpr3gFm8CoNb5tLvbBqFAzJaGTnLlxkJ dHdM2twKfKySr8LT5QVoL+QUDQ0G2pn386NOhg4ATvi09yNjWAAZW3BQgEnz9N/UGJl/leKcF 0HweDKAWu0NzIvyk8yEcgIS5odKbAwCzFlGCUJHWhTWwmCo6dPjYURPwIV4alk6N8l3aQyRXY SdRoXDqPt/qMvlVEeN345+4CTBatHdAioO3qhcghuZcJFl5l3ZOPlT6cOwh3F+wnAlxXdLkNN urvl3I/e+ooPru4igrsD/D28yS+T5mq0TijZQnqZ0hESwJJAByUdOa7mutxegIvmvgH0C8cu5 Hy/Xwe+SGGM7wXZVr6fYLrIzyquf7eXW7eYPovKl5VrtjlukxcZ3OWPBe6HisBAdRwx9xM4t3 kXk28iVWzQ398bLOuQVyV0rU/vB+lZxm2FlUur/MtWAGHgvXhXPiLP4RDjmK6lOhpFR6k/F+6 HtK2b9HOv4zi1hpqt/AOgHPUmDJgJXQESh1LN8UXCI/xK/0Ixa8PXgu+uIJ62wKDTpfw3O3uh 1lZA3n/WkhSMb+DA2e47DChgmuwEuIDam0b+zpBCg4HW7ew== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:01:39 AM CEST Peter Griffin wrote: > > STiH415 I'm sure never shipped. I'm reasonably sure STiH416 didn't > either. These SoCs were considered legacy even when I was at ST > ~3 years ago. > > Also remember these are STB SoC's, so JTAG fuses are blown in > production boxes, and also full security is enabled. This means the > primary bootloader will only boot a signed kernel. So if a end user > did happen to have a box they would be unable to upgrade their kernel. > > From the landing team perspective they were interesting in that they > shared many IPs with the STiH407 family on which future chipsets were > based, and were available to us when that silicon was harder to get > hold of. So we used it as a vehicle for upstreaming so that upstream > support was already quite good when STiH407 silicon did land on our > desk. Ok, makes sense. I did stumble over one machine basedon STiH412 the other day [1], but there probably isn't much shared with that one. Since this a NAS server rather than an STB box, it's probably less locked-down and potentially a target for OpenWRT or similar. Arnd [1] http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/synology-diskstation-ds216play-16tb-a1400885.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:00:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform support In-Reply-To: <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> References: <1473859677-9231-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <7524458.uFhxDUCqEo@wuerfel> <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> Message-ID: <10792443.jxCOopyCy4@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:01:39 AM CEST Peter Griffin wrote: > > STiH415 I'm sure never shipped. I'm reasonably sure STiH416 didn't > either. These SoCs were considered legacy even when I was at ST > ~3 years ago. > > Also remember these are STB SoC's, so JTAG fuses are blown in > production boxes, and also full security is enabled. This means the > primary bootloader will only boot a signed kernel. So if a end user > did happen to have a box they would be unable to upgrade their kernel. > > From the landing team perspective they were interesting in that they > shared many IPs with the STiH407 family on which future chipsets were > based, and were available to us when that silicon was harder to get > hold of. So we used it as a vehicle for upstreaming so that upstream > support was already quite good when STiH407 silicon did land on our > desk. Ok, makes sense. I did stumble over one machine basedon STiH412 the other day [1], but there probably isn't much shared with that one. Since this a NAS server rather than an STB box, it's probably less locked-down and potentially a target for OpenWRT or similar. Arnd [1] http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/synology-diskstation-ds216play-16tb-a1400885.html