Re: [GIT PULL 1/7] soc/tegra: Changes for v5.20-rc1

From: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc: arm-soc <arm@kernel.org>, SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>,
	"open list:TEGRA ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT"
	<linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/7] soc/tegra: Changes for v5.20-rc1
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2022 13:19:35 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d12fa14a-bf0d-4e98-acd8-69229315d660@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0cSq47B=acZ854TVu=RckJNfyfKdqQUMzCX7SsV7Wt0g@mail.gmail.com>

On 13/07/2022 13:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

...

>>> For the other patches, I found two more problems:
>>>
>>>> Bitan Biswas (1):
>>>>        soc/tegra: fuse: Expose Tegra production status
>>>
>>> Please don't just add random attributes in the soc device infrastructure.
>>> This one has a completely generic name but a SoC specific
>>> meaning, and it lacks a description in Documentation/ABI.
>>> Not sure what the right ABI is here, but this is something that needs
>>> to be discussed more broadly when you send a new version.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that the SoC device infrastructure was restricted to only
>> standardized attributes. Looks like there are a few other outliers that
>> add custom attributes: UX500, ARM Integrator and RealView, and OMAP2.
>>
>> Do we have some other place where this kind of thing can be exposed? Or
>> do we just need to come up with some better way of namespacing these?
>> Perhaps it would also be sufficient if all of these were better
>> documented so that people know what to look for on their platform of
>> interest.
> 
> It's not a 100% strict rule, I've just tried to limit it as much as possible,
> and sometimes missed drivers doing it anyway. My main goal here is
> to make things consistent between SoC families, so if one piece of
> information is provided by a number of them, I'd rather have a standard
> attribute, or a common way of encoding this in the existing attributes
> than to have too many custom attributes with similar names.

Makes sense. Any recommendations for this specific attribute? I could 
imagine other vendors may have engineering devices and production 
versions. This is slightly different from the silicon version.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic