From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Icenowy Zheng Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:10:34 +0800 Message-ID: <14593819.uISRktVE4V@ice-x220i> References: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20180122121435.bpayxk4uzfqbhqse@flea.lan> Reply-To: icenowy-h8G6r0blFSE@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Sender: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org In-Reply-To: <20180122121435.bpayxk4uzfqbhqse-ZC1Zs529Oq4@public.gmane.org> List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org Cc: Maxime Ripard , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org, Marc Zyngier , Linus Walleij , Daniel Lezcano , Russell King , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-gpio-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-clk-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org =E5=9C=A8 2018=E5=B9=B41=E6=9C=8822=E6=97=A5=E6=98=9F=E6=9C=9F=E4=B8=80 CST= =E4=B8=8B=E5=8D=888:14:35=EF=BC=8CMaxime Ripard =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC= =9A > 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= . > >=20 > > 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 SoC= s > > 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 a= s > > common name of all these SoCs. >=20 > Where is that suniv prefix coming from? The BSP (Melis and Linux). (e.g. "libs/suniv" directory of the Melis SDK an= d=20 "arch/arm/boot/dts/sunivw1p1.dtsi" in the Linux SDK) >=20 > And you need to have a SoC in all your compatibles. This isn't about > being clever or not, this is just a matter of being able to accurately > read in a crystal ball. Or maybe it's just the same, in which case, > I'd really like to have a course :) Okay. I will choose to use f1c100s in my next patchset, as it's where it's developed. (Although I mainly refered F1C600 BSP and document) >=20 > 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? >=20 > If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100% > certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible. >=20 > 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 know= n=20 should go through suniv.dtsi. >=20 > Maxime --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to linux-sunxi+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933681AbeAXNKz convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:10:55 -0500 Received: from hermes.aosc.io ([199.195.250.187]:40858 "EHLO hermes.aosc.io" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933305AbeAXNKx (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jan 2018 08:10:53 -0500 From: Icenowy Zheng To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Maxime Ripard , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Marc Zyngier , Linus Walleij , Daniel Lezcano , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:10:34 +0800 Message-ID: <14593819.uISRktVE4V@ice-x220i> In-Reply-To: <20180122121435.bpayxk4uzfqbhqse@flea.lan> References: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20180122121435.bpayxk4uzfqbhqse@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: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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) > > And you need to have a SoC in all your compatibles. This isn't about > being clever or not, this is just a matter of being able to accurately > read in a crystal ball. Or maybe it's just the same, in which case, > I'd really like to have a course :) Okay. I will choose to use f1c100s in my next patchset, as it's where it's developed. (Although I mainly refered F1C600 BSP and document) > > 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. > > Maxime From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: icenowy@aosc.io (Icenowy Zheng) Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 21:10:34 +0800 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC In-Reply-To: <20180122121435.bpayxk4uzfqbhqse@flea.lan> References: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20180122121435.bpayxk4uzfqbhqse@flea.lan> Message-ID: <14593819.uISRktVE4V@ice-x220i> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org ? 2018?1?22???? CST ??8:14:35?Maxime Ripard ??? > 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) > > And you need to have a SoC in all your compatibles. This isn't about > being clever or not, this is just a matter of being able to accurately > read in a crystal ball. Or maybe it's just the same, in which case, > I'd really like to have a course :) Okay. I will choose to use f1c100s in my next patchset, as it's where it's developed. (Although I mainly refered F1C600 BSP and document) > > 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. > > Maxime