From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AA5BC4320A for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1247960FE7 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:12:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232491AbhGaIM6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jul 2021 04:12:58 -0400 Received: from smtp-relay-canonical-0.canonical.com ([185.125.188.120]:44722 "EHLO smtp-relay-canonical-0.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232273AbhGaIM6 (ORCPT ); Sat, 31 Jul 2021 04:12:58 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-relay-canonical-0.canonical.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D60C23F233 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 08:12:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=canonical.com; s=20210705; t=1627719170; bh=HofaMjseVcCUgqSYBsyKnJ2om6JL+Ag5g9O40Ge5/aA=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:References:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=KrCfpMKt7a20tIXJx0UX6vAmt0qXGZnxmrsdapyDypuBya8UfXsLCxfVU7XAF9vRp mVmOHEl8a/8HerNeScDyX4/MuICS6qe7utL38F+FMZrCdo3Pua6sOYmYyRM/xBd6Cn N/icXqx2z1L0PHAahtdEIFxCy2CItLRbRJ1tmdftcvLUkGXMjszt4flEeUPrny8V3K gqn7X75b6geCkACZVLrKW4eTkDOhQoNlXEcIEZv3NA77ksQwqTNdDdhTU2tAZ3k/oY 1zN1lDBS5lr6BVqdA3zli48hI87lMkiqgogps3JxU8wnCPfK0ZnA2nwixZ18pOqlwW WMhlHoBXZ9RZA== Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id de5-20020a0564023085b02903bb92fd182eso5865240edb.8 for ; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:12:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HofaMjseVcCUgqSYBsyKnJ2om6JL+Ag5g9O40Ge5/aA=; b=P8Wqt9+mAq6UIGMNtSv1TpmRJOOzhyUivNcsMounK80u2uF7KDwDMqMqtEe6+1ZJOd gj2cch4dKn9WBPGKBisxkcRmLe09RaFPGeCBVEbNG2/OoUOeU6mhNu2Ou1ms8dlTtsr/ VUlpbT7sIQzwbO+dR2PODyWBy4c/BLA/OVQcrOe+HVMlTowQFBH2FYdNsJyqwRkC+1oM QGjnqdCel7PNEZ99lfunlYOs6Enw9v5M1RSX/9Y4fr5lP1Y7adnDXwGsD0YhJEAFxL27 vgcDGfWqzIOj7ULEWF3Z8y7xV1soqKTLK/GcCzMj7l+L3dYQiVfL967J1GD3MKy5hVIn teVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532JtqdpMRjOv9c1J8gRODbTo9AgR3xsDEbh6M1b9EjmSNkS1tHR mIWckhxwZWQoHw1RlmDI5ScoVhMe0nou0XyJHPzWiKl4ykHG2mRXb60/uhB44bOUGJOQcnHy4vH Ki1sYtEATL9h8Or8ZqvZzD5ryYshzWwJRWALCA4iv5592tVgC X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cd1a:: with SMTP id oz26mr6577411ejb.101.1627719170297; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:12:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwm7c/vYPdEZ6qJ4RX+9vAac/dbPuwTMcFunGU0oW5pq2v9q/TLiem2CXVaQ4vIsN9WXGr5Fg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:cd1a:: with SMTP id oz26mr6577395ejb.101.1627719170126; Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:12:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.8.102] ([86.32.47.9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r16sm1860561edt.15.2021.07.31.01.12.48 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Sat, 31 Jul 2021 01:12:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Add minimal support for Exynos850 SoC From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Sam Protsenko Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki , Chanwoo Choi , Linus Walleij , Tomasz Figa , Rob Herring , Stephen Boyd , Michael Turquette , Jiri Slaby , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Charles Keepax , Ryu Euiyoul , Tom Gall , Sumit Semwal , John Stultz , Amit Pundir , devicetree , linux-arm Mailing List , linux-clk , "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Linux Samsung SOC , "open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" References: <20210730144922.29111-1-semen.protsenko@linaro.org> <5e35b0a7-13aa-3c62-ca49-14af2fcb2a08@canonical.com> <13f166bb-7103-25d5-35a6-8ec53a1f1817@canonical.com> Message-ID: <2dacc205-04ce-c206-a393-50ba0d5aa1a7@canonical.com> Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2021 10:12:47 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <13f166bb-7103-25d5-35a6-8ec53a1f1817@canonical.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org On 31/07/2021 09:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/07/2021 21:02, Sam Protsenko wrote: >> Hi Krzysztof, >> >> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 20:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski >> wrote: >>> >>> On 30/07/2021 17:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 30/07/2021 16:49, Sam Protsenko wrote: >>>>> This patch series adds initial platform support for Samsung Exynos850 >>>>> SoC [1]. With this patchset it's possible to run the kernel with BusyBox >>>>> rootfs as a RAM disk. More advanced platform support (like MMC driver >>>>> additions) will be added later. The idea is to keep the first submission >>>>> minimal to ease the review, and then build up on top of that. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/exynos/products/mobileprocessor/exynos-850/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> Great work! >>>> >> >> Thanks, Krzysztof! And thank you for reviewing the whole series. >> >>>> What's the SoC revision number (should be accessible via >>>> /sys/bus/soc/devices/soc0/)? Recent wrap in numbering of Exynos chips >>>> might bring confusion... >> >> # cat /sys/devices/soc0/revision >> 0 > > soc_id but you're right it won't be set for unknown SoCs. You need to > extend drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-chipid.c to parse new values (E3830000 > for product ID) and maybe new register offsets (previous offset is 0x0, > for 3830 is 0x10 I think). Also revision mask might change. > >>> Judging by vendor's sources it is quite confusing. It looks mostly like >>> Exynos3830 but in few other cases it uses Exynos9 compatibles (Exynos9, >>> Exynos9820). Only in few places there is Exynos850. Marketing department >>> made it so confusing... The revision embedded in SoC would be very >>> interesting. >>> >> >> As I understand, this SoC is called Exynos850 everywhere now. >> Exynos3830 is its old name, not used anymore. As you noticed from >> patch #2, it shares some definitions with Exynos9 SoC, so I guess some >> software is similar for both architectures. Not sure about hardware >> though, never worked with Exynos9 CPUs. Anyway, I asked Samsung >> representatives about naming, and it seems like we should stick to >> "Exynos850" name, even in code. > > > Since the chip identifies itself as E3830000, I would prefer naming > matching real product ID instead of what is pushed by marketing or sales > representatives. The marketing names don't have to follow any > engineering rules, they can be changed and renamed. Sales follows rather > money and corporate rules, not consistency for upstream project. On the other hand we have already two exceptions for naming inconsistency - Exynos3250 identifies itself as 3472 (which is confusing because 3250 is two core and there is a separate quad-core Exyons3472...) and Exynos5800 is actually marketing name for a revision of Exynos5422. Maybe indeed will be easier to go with the branded name 850... Best regards, Krzysztof