+ Matheus On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 01:58:05PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > Hi Mani, Andreas, > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:49:37PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On 01.04.21 12:27, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 12:40:41PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > >> On Thu, Apr 01, 2021 at 10:54:38AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:48:15PM +0300, Cristian Ciocaltea wrote: > > >>>> This patchset adds a socinfo driver which provides information about > > >>>> Actions Semi Owl SoCs to user space via sysfs: machine, family, soc_id, > > >>>> serial_number. > > >>>> > > >>>> Please note the serial number is currently available only for the S500 > > >>>> SoC variant. > > >>>> > > >>>> This has been tested on the S500 SoC based RoseapplePi SBC. > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> Is this the soc_id provided by the vendor bootloader (uboot)? If so, under > > >>> what basis it provides? I don't think the SoC has the provision for > > >>> soc_id based on HW parameters. > > >> > > >> No, the soc_id is not provided by the bootloader, or at least I couldn't > > >> identify any related implementation. Instead, I provided this via the > > >> driver itself, since I've encountered this approach in some other soc > > >> drivers as well (e.g. imx/soc-imx.c, versatile/soc-integrator.c). > > >> > > > > > > Sorry, I was referring to serial_number. Since your comment says so, can > > > you point to the corresponding code? > > > > Seconded that this needs to be better understood. If this is just a > > convention of some downstream U-Boot that's not implemented in mainline > > (and maybe not even for Guitar or Labrador? tested on RoseapplePi only), > > it might not be worth its own reserved-memory based kernel driver? > > The serial number is actually provided by the s500-bootloader for which > Actions did not provide the source code, at least it is not available > in the xapp github repo. I did not find anything related to this in > downstream U-Boot. > Hmm, then we can consider this as the firmware dependent property. But can we get consensus that this is common for all S500 SoCs? Maybe, Matheus can verify it on Labrador? I don't think adding a SOCINFO driver for a single board is a good idea. Thanks, Mani > Kind regards, > Cristi > > > Implementing a standard interface such as DMI tables or a DT property in > > mainline U-Boot may be more useful then. Is it still Mani's S900 only? > > > > Regards, > > Andreas > > > > -- > > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH > > Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > > GF: Felix Imendörffer > > HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg)
