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 > > 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. > Anyway, judging by current versioning, there is a risk Samsung will come > with a new chipset name conflicting with existing ones. It already > overflowed. > > It's even worse with a thingy called "Exynos9 auto" which hides > numbering even more. > > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
