On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Saturday 03 May 2014 15:11:36 Pankaj Dubey wrote: >> This patch series attempts to get rid of soc_is_exynosXXXX macros >> and eventually with the help of this series we can probably get >> rid of CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOSXXXX in near future. >> Each Exynos SoC has ChipID block which can give information about >> SoC's product Id and revision number. Currently we have single >> DT binding information for this as "samsung,exynos4210-chipid". >> But Exynos4 and Exynos5 SoC series have one small difference in >> chip Id, with resepect to product id bit-masks. So it means we >> should have separate compatible string for these different series >> of SoCs. So I have created new binding information for handling >> this difference. Also currently I can think of putting this driver >> code under "drivers/misc/" but suggestions are welcome. >> Also current form of driver is missing platfrom driver and needs >> init function to be called from machine file (either exynos.c or >> platsmp.c). I hope lot of suggestions and comments to improve this >> further. >> >> This patch series is based on Kukjin Kim's for-next (3.14_rc1 tag) >> and prepared on top of following patch series and it's dependent >> patch series. > > I think putting it into drivers/soc would be most appropriate. > We already have a few drivers lined up that we want in there, > although the directory currently doesn't exist. > > However, I would ask that you use the infrastructure provided by > drivers/base/soc.c when you add this driver, to also make the > information available to user space using a standard API. Agreed. > Ideally this should be done by slightly restructuring the DT > source to make all on-chip devices appear below the soc node. > We'd have to think a bit about how to best do this while > preserving compatibility with existing dts files. I don't agree. How is a block with chip ID info the parent of all the other devices? In doing some work to move default of_platform_populate out of platforms, I noticed that most platforms using the soc device are making it the parent of platform devices. I think this is either wrong or all platforms should have a default soc device. It makes little sense for some platforms to have a devices under a soc sysfs directory while others do not. Or the location changes when a platform latter adds the soc device. Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |