From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965801AbcKOF17 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:27:59 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-f50.google.com ([74.125.83.50]:35090 "EHLO mail-pg0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936546AbcKOF15 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Nov 2016 00:27:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 21:27:50 -0800 From: Bjorn Andersson To: Imran Khan Cc: andy.gross@linaro.org, lee.jones@linaro.org, David Brown , open list , "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" , "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] soc: qcom: Add SoC info driver Message-ID: <20161115052750.GB28340@tuxbot> References: <1478081201-31998-1-git-send-email-kimran@codeaurora.org> <20161102183039.GO25787@tuxbot> <9ef1354b-d27c-e71f-b795-1e2f2dbcf9ab@codeaurora.org> <20161107193514.GC25787@tuxbot> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 14 Nov 06:30 PST 2016, Imran Khan wrote: > On 11/8/2016 1:05 AM, Bjorn Andersson wrote: > > On Mon 07 Nov 06:35 PST 2016, Imran Khan wrote: > > > > > > > > [..] > > > >>>> +static void socinfo_populate(struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr) > >>>> +{ > >>>> + u32 soc_version = socinfo_get_version(); > >>>> + > >>>> + soc_dev_attr->soc_id = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%d", socinfo_get_id()); > >>> > >>> I believe soc_id is supposed to be a human readable name; e.g. "MSM8996" > >>> not "246". > >>> > >> > >> I am not sure about this. I see other vendors also exposing soc_id as numeric value > >> and machine is perhaps used for a human readable name. Please let me if I > >> am getting something wrong here. > >> > > > > I'm slightly confused to what these various properties are supposed to > > contain, according to Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-devices-soc soc_id > > should contain the SoC serial number, while most implementations does > > like you and put something telling which SoC it is. > > > > 246 is however not a useful number, as everyone reading it - be it human > > or computer - will have to carry the translation table to figure out > > what it actually says. > > > > Yeah. I agree on this point. I was just following the lead of other SoCs here. > Just worried if having a string here breaks the convention. At least having > a numeric number is more in line with the documentation which expects a > serial number. May be here by serial number the documentation means numeric > id itself. Can someone please provide some feedback? > Yeah, the more i look at this the more puzzled I become about what should go where. > >>>> + soc_dev_attr->family = "Snapdragon"; > > > > I think family should be e.g. "MSM8996" and then machine should be e.g. > > "MSM8996AU". > > > > I think here family should be Snapdragon.The following site also mentions > the SoCs as Snapdragon family of processors. > > https://www.qualcomm.com/products/snapdragon/processors/comparison > > Could you please confirm if it's okay? > In our previous technical discussions regarding Qualcomm platforms the possible values for "family" would be U, A and B (maybe something new these days?). But I don't think we gain anything from having the kernel tell us this. So I'm fine with you reporting "Snapdragon" as family and I guess machine would then get e.g. "APQ8096". I don't know what to put in soc_id. I think this would be sufficient for user space's needs. Regards, Bjorn