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 >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
