by Rask Ingemann Lambertsen

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 8/9] ARM: dts: suniv: add initial DTSI file for suniv and F1C100s

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:34AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> As we have the support for suniv pin controller and CCU now, add a
> initial DTSI for it.
>
> F1C100s is one product with the suniv die, which has a 32MiB co-packaged
> DDR1 DRAM chip. As there's nothing special for it, add a dummy DTSI file
> for it.
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
> index d0381e9caf21..b877e0bf1823 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
> @@ -972,6 +972,8 @@ dtb-$(CONFIG_MACH_SUN8I) += \
> dtb-$(CONFIG_MACH_SUN9I) += \
> sun9i-a80-optimus.dtb \
> sun9i-a80-cubieboard4.dtb
> +dtb-$(CONFIG_MACH_SUNIV) += \
> + suniv-f1c100s-licheepi-nano.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TANGO) += \
> tango4-vantage-1172.dtb
> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_2x_SOC) += \

The hunk above should go with your patch
"[RFC PATCH 9/9] ARM: suniv: f1c100s: add device tree for Lichee Pi Nano"
instead.

--
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen

2018-01-22 12:15:20

by Maxime Ripard

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:26AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> This is the RFC initial patchset for the "new" Allwinner SUNIV ARM9 SoC.
>
> The same die is packaged differently, come with different co-packaged
> DRAM or shipped with different SDK; and then made many model names: F23,
> F25, F1C100A, F1C100S, F1C200S, F1C500, F1C600, R6, etc. These SoCs all
> share a common feature set and are packaged similarly (eLQFP128 for SoCs
> without co-packaged DRAM, QFN88 for with DRAM). As their's no
> functionality hidden on the QFN88 models (except DRAM interface not
> exported), it's not clever to differentiate them. So I will use suniv as
> common name of all these SoCs.

Where is that suniv prefix coming from?

And you need to have a SoC in all your compatibles. This isn't about
being clever or not, this is just a matter of being able to accurately
read in a crystal ball. Or maybe it's just the same, in which case,
I'd really like to have a course :)

You should really answer two questions here:
- Are you able to predict whether you'll find an SoC part of that
family in the future that derives a bit and will need a compatible
of its own?
- Are you able to predict which quirks we'll need along the way to
support all the SoCs you've listed there?

If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100%
certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible.

Which doesn't prevent you from sharing as much as possible the DT like
we did between the A10s and the A13 for example.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachments:

(No filename) (1.63 kB)
signature.asc (849.00 B)
Download all attachments

2018-01-22 12:17:10

Hi,

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:10:34PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> 在 2018年1月22日星期一 CST 下午8:14:35，Maxime Ripard 写道：
> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:26AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > > This is the RFC initial patchset for the "new" Allwinner SUNIV ARM9 SoC.
> > >
> > > The same die is packaged differently, come with different co-packaged
> > > DRAM or shipped with different SDK; and then made many model names: F23,
> > > F25, F1C100A, F1C100S, F1C200S, F1C500, F1C600, R6, etc. These SoCs all
> > > share a common feature set and are packaged similarly (eLQFP128 for SoCs
> > > without co-packaged DRAM, QFN88 for with DRAM). As their's no
> > > functionality hidden on the QFN88 models (except DRAM interface not
> > > exported), it's not clever to differentiate them. So I will use suniv as
> > > common name of all these SoCs.
> >
> > Where is that suniv prefix coming from?
>
> The BSP (Melis and Linux). (e.g. "libs/suniv" directory of the Melis SDK and
> "arch/arm/boot/dts/sunivw1p1.dtsi" in the Linux SDK)

Do you have a link to that BSP?

> > You should really answer two questions here:
> > - Are you able to predict whether you'll find an SoC part of that
> > family in the future that derives a bit and will need a compatible
> > of its own?
> > - Are you able to predict which quirks we'll need along the way to
> > support all the SoCs you've listed there?
> >
> > If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100%
> > certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible.
> >
> > Which doesn't prevent you from sharing as much as possible the DT like
> > we did between the A10s and the A13 for example.
>
> So the suniv-f1c100s.dtsi will still be kept empty and all peripherals known
> should go through suniv.dtsi.

Sorry if I wasn't really clear. You can totally keep the current DT
structure if that makes sense (and judging by what you're saying, it
does.), but the compatibles should have the SoC name in it.

Maxime

--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com

Attachments:

(No filename) (2.11 kB)
signature.asc (849.00 B)
Download all attachments

2018-01-25 15:39:57

by Icenowy Zheng

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC

于 2018年1月25日 GMT+08:00 下午11:35:20, Maxime Ripard <[email protected]> 写到:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:10:34PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> 在 2018年1月22日星期一 CST 下午8:14:35，Maxime Ripard 写道：
>> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:26AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> > > This is the RFC initial patchset for the "new" Allwinner SUNIV
>ARM9 SoC.
>> > >
>> > > The same die is packaged differently, come with different
>co-packaged
>> > > DRAM or shipped with different SDK; and then made many model
>names: F23,
>> > > F25, F1C100A, F1C100S, F1C200S, F1C500, F1C600, R6, etc. These
>SoCs all
>> > > share a common feature set and are packaged similarly (eLQFP128
>for SoCs
>> > > without co-packaged DRAM, QFN88 for with DRAM). As their's no
>> > > functionality hidden on the QFN88 models (except DRAM interface
>not
>> > > exported), it's not clever to differentiate them. So I will use
>suniv as
>> > > common name of all these SoCs.
>> >
>> > Where is that suniv prefix coming from?
>>
>> The BSP (Melis and Linux). (e.g. "libs/suniv" directory of the Melis
>SDK and
>> "arch/arm/boot/dts/sunivw1p1.dtsi" in the Linux SDK)
>
>Do you have a link to that BSP?

I have it on the Baidu Pan. Is it acceptable?

>
>> > You should really answer two questions here:
>> > - Are you able to predict whether you'll find an SoC part of that
>> > family in the future that derives a bit and will need a
>compatible
>> > of its own?
>> > - Are you able to predict which quirks we'll need along the way
>to
>> > support all the SoCs you've listed there?
>> >
>> > If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100%
>> > certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible.
>> >
>> > Which doesn't prevent you from sharing as much as possible the DT
>like
>> > we did between the A10s and the A13 for example.
>>
>> So the suniv-f1c100s.dtsi will still be kept empty and all
>peripherals known
>> should go through suniv.dtsi.
>
>Sorry if I wasn't really clear. You can totally keep the current DT
>structure if that makes sense (and judging by what you're saying, it
>does.), but the compatibles should have the SoC name in it.

Okay.

>
>Maxime

2018-01-26 14:44:20

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 04:35:20PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:10:34PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > 在 2018年1月22日星期一 CST 下午8:14:35，Maxime Ripard 写道：
> > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:26AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> > > > This is the RFC initial patchset for the "new" Allwinner SUNIV ARM9 SoC.
> > > >
> > > > The same die is packaged differently, come with different co-packaged
> > > > DRAM or shipped with different SDK; and then made many model names: F23,
> > > > F25, F1C100A, F1C100S, F1C200S, F1C500, F1C600, R6, etc. These SoCs all
> > > > share a common feature set and are packaged similarly (eLQFP128 for SoCs
> > > > without co-packaged DRAM, QFN88 for with DRAM). As their's no
> > > > functionality hidden on the QFN88 models (except DRAM interface not
> > > > exported), it's not clever to differentiate them. So I will use suniv as
> > > > common name of all these SoCs.
> > >
> > > Where is that suniv prefix coming from?
> >
> > The BSP (Melis and Linux). (e.g. "libs/suniv" directory of the Melis SDK and
> > "arch/arm/boot/dts/sunivw1p1.dtsi" in the Linux SDK)
>
> Do you have a link to that BSP?
>
> > > You should really answer two questions here:
> > > - Are you able to predict whether you'll find an SoC part of that
> > > family in the future that derives a bit and will need a compatible
> > > of its own?
> > > - Are you able to predict which quirks we'll need along the way to
> > > support all the SoCs you've listed there?
> > >
> > > If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100%
> > > certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible.
> > >
> > > Which doesn't prevent you from sharing as much as possible the DT like
> > > we did between the A10s and the A13 for example.
> >
> > So the suniv-f1c100s.dtsi will still be kept empty and all peripherals known
> > should go through suniv.dtsi.
>
> Sorry if I wasn't really clear. You can totally keep the current DT
> structure if that makes sense (and judging by what you're saying, it
> does.), but the compatibles should have the SoC name in it.

In case it's not clear, the compatible strings and any new bindings need
to be documented.

Rob