From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753193AbcGYPNM (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:13:12 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:48488 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753125AbcGYPNG (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:13:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> References: <1469105055-25181-1-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <1469105055-25181-16-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <20160721221605.GA21883@rob-hp-laptop> <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:12:43 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: Grzegorz Jaszczyk , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Mark Rutland , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Russell King - ARM Linux , Gregory CLEMENT , Marcin Wojtas , Lior Amsalem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >> > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the >> > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit >> > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing >> > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398 >> > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first. >> >> But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the >> string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if >> the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398 >> without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here. > > I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a > strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395 > will also apply to 398. Yes, I get that, but that is only meaningful if you want to run an OS that is only aware of 395 on a 398 SoC/board (though I'd guess the 390 compat is enough for that). Otherwise, that property is not really meaningful as the additional nodes are enough to handle what is the superset. I would agree both are fine if both chips are in fact the same die, just fused or packaged differently. I've seen a lot of chips that are supposed to be sub/supersets of each other, but have different errata lists because they are different die. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:12:43 -0500 Message-ID: References: <1469105055-25181-1-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <1469105055-25181-16-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <20160721221605.GA21883@rob-hp-laptop> <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Petazzoni Cc: Grzegorz Jaszczyk , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Mark Rutland , Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Russell King - ARM Linux , Gregory CLEMENT , Marcin Wojtas , Lior Amsalem List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >> > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the >> > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit >> > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing >> > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398 >> > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first. >> >> But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the >> string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if >> the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398 >> without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here. > > I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a > strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395 > will also apply to 398. Yes, I get that, but that is only meaningful if you want to run an OS that is only aware of 395 on a 398 SoC/board (though I'd guess the 390 compat is enough for that). Otherwise, that property is not really meaningful as the additional nodes are enough to handle what is the superset. I would agree both are fine if both chips are in fact the same die, just fused or packaged differently. I've seen a lot of chips that are supposed to be sub/supersets of each other, but have different errata lists because they are different die. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring) Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:12:43 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 14/18] ARM: mvebu: add support for the Armada 395 SoC family In-Reply-To: <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> References: <1469105055-25181-1-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <1469105055-25181-16-git-send-email-jaz@semihalf.com> <20160721221605.GA21883@rob-hp-laptop> <20160725155050.3aee974e@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Mon, 25 Jul 2016 08:47:23 -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >> > I am not sure if I get your point. The Armada-398 extends the >> > Armada-395 about 2 additional SATA ports (as you can see in commit >> > "[PATCH 15/18] ARM: mvebu: a398: update the dtsi about missing >> > interfaces"). In this example the a398-db board contains the Armada398 >> > SoC, so it is a better match and goes first. >> >> But your patch title is adding 395 support, but you are adding the >> string to a 398 based board. It would make sense to have 395 here if >> the OS already had support for 395 and you want to support the 398 >> without updating the OS. That doesn't seem to apply here. > > I think the argument of Grzegorz is that the 398 is functionally a > strict superset of the 395, so that anything that applies to the 395 > will also apply to 398. Yes, I get that, but that is only meaningful if you want to run an OS that is only aware of 395 on a 398 SoC/board (though I'd guess the 390 compat is enough for that). Otherwise, that property is not really meaningful as the additional nodes are enough to handle what is the superset. I would agree both are fine if both chips are in fact the same die, just fused or packaged differently. I've seen a lot of chips that are supposed to be sub/supersets of each other, but have different errata lists because they are different die. Rob