On 03/11/2023 18:36, William McVicker wrote: >> >> That's indeed a problem. Future Tesla SoC might have just few pieces >> similar to FSD. There would be no common SoC part, except the actual >> Tesla IP. >> >> Same for Google. Future GSXXX, if done by Qualcomm, will be absolutely >> different than GS101 and the only common part would be the TPU (Tensor). >> >> So now let's decide what is the common denominator: >> 1. Core SoC architecture, like buses, pinctrl, clocks, timers, serial, >> and many IP blocks, which constitute 95% of Devicetree bindings and drivers, >> 2. The one, big piece made by Samsung's customer: TPU, NPU or whatever. > > As mentioned above, I think this should be based on how the DTBs and DTBOs are > used and distributed. None of existing platforms do it. Nowhere. All chromebooks are split per SoC, not "how DTBs should be used and distributed". There is no google, no Chromebook directory. None of Samsung phones have it. No Samsung-phone directory. None of Google phones have Pixel directory. You are now trying to introduce completely new rule, not existing in any upstream platform. > What is the benefit of adding the gs101 board files under > the exynos folder? To make it easier for us to maintain. You won't be maintaining any of these platforms. None of Google folks contributed patches or maintained any of these platforms so far, so it is up to upstream community to decide what is the most convenience way to maintain the kernel sources. Best regards, Krzysztof
