On 10/20/24 4:53 PM, Andre Przywara wrote: > On Sun, 20 Oct 2024 15:06:46 +0530 > Parthiban <parthiban@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > >> Am currently adding support for Allwinner A133 SoC based on A100. > > Many thanks for picking this up, but what do you mean exactly by > "adding support"? As you probably have seen, there is already some By meaning using the existing compatible and preparing devicetree for [1]. > basic support for the A100 in the tree, and since we assume that both > SoCs are basically identical, there wouldn't be too much left to do, > would there? > For reference, there is some leftover patch series from the original > A100 upstreaming attempt, which you could rebase and rework: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/cover.1604988979.git.frank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ Yeah, I did pull few things which were dangling in the series. > > I haven't checked in a while, but some patches in there have either > been merged or are superseded by other patches, and I guess the others > need at least a rebase, but it's certainly something worthwhile to work > on. > >> Based on the [1], >> A100 and A133 uses same IP across. But there is no public available datasheet or >> user manual for A100. > > Indeed there has never been, and back then we relied on information > provided by those Allwinner employees sending the patches. > For now we assume that the A133 manual describes the A100 as well. > >> Should A100 kept as base and A133 dtsi needs to added on top or A133 can be duplicated >> into a new devicetree? > > As far as we know, the A133 is the better bin of the A100, so they > should be identical from the software perspective. This seems to be > similar to the H616/H313 situation. At some point the A100 totally > disappeared from Allwinner's documentation (in an almost "Orwellian > 1984 fashion"), and they only mention the A133 ever since. > > So, since the A100 is already in, and was the first one, I'd say: > - Keep using an allwinner,sun50i-a100 prefix for any compatible string. > Rationale: it's the base model, and was the first one, and we have > compatible strings with that in, so we should keep using that for > consistency. > - There is no need for any kind of a133.dtsi, since they are probably > identical. > - If you add a board with an A133, use that name in the root compatible > string, but include the a100.dtsi. See the H616/H313/H618 situation, > for instance as in sun50i-h618-transpeed-8k618-t.dts. Thanks for the details. That helps. > > Hope that helps, and thanks for your efforts on improving support for > that chip! Please come back to the #linux-sunxi IRC channel on OFTC, > there is someone (MasterR3C0RD) actively working on some A133 board as > well, and he even has a working DRAM driver for U-Boot. So you should > coordinate any upstreaming efforts. Great, am still stuck with 2018 tree from vendor, this will help. [1]: https://szbaijie.com/index/product/product_detail.html?product_id=23&language=en Thanks, Parthiban N > > Cheers > Andre > > > > >> >> [1]: https://linux-sunxi.org/Linux_mainlining_effort#Status_Matrix >> > >
