Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Abel Vesa <abel.vesa@nxp.com>
To:     Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com>
CC:     "shawnguo@kernel.org" <shawnguo@kernel.org>,
        Jacky Bai <ping.bai@nxp.com>, dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "stefan@agner.ch" <stefan@agner.ch>,
        "abelvesa@linux.com" <abelvesa@linux.com>,
        "spencercw@gmail.com" <spencercw@gmail.com>,
        Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@nxp.com>,
        "robh@kernel.org" <robh@kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Anson Huang <anson.huang@nxp.com>,
        "l.stach@pengutronix.de" <l.stach@pengutronix.de>,
        "kernel@pengutronix.de" <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] soc: imx: Add generic i.MX8 SoC driver
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2] soc: imx: Add generic i.MX8 SoC driver
Thread-Index: AQHUzcGB6LodUxnT8UyD0+K7eGuy3qXyFIYAgAFAXgA=
Date:   Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:41:17 +0000
Message-ID: <20190227084116.42yrs26i5xlkppgl@fsr-ub1664-175>
References: <1551178385-14572-1-git-send-email-abel.vesa@nxp.com>
 <dff8a3aa9dd6501280300654f085f07c87d4cd23.camel@nxp.com>
In-Reply-To: <dff8a3aa9dd6501280300654f085f07c87d4cd23.camel@nxp.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: nxp.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <B103584CADFEFC4787F4B5784990AE2F@eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 698588bb-bb47-414f-3d22-08d69c8f573a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 27 Feb 2019 08:41:17.5653
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 686ea1d3-bc2b-4c6f-a92c-d99c5c301635
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: AM0PR04MB6291
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 19-02-26 13:34:52, Leonard Crestez wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-02-26 at 10:53 +0000, Abel Vesa wrote:
> > Add generic i.MX8 SoC driver along with the i.MX8MQ SoC specific code.
> > For now, only i.MX8MQ revision B1 is supported. For any other, i.MX8MQ
> > revision it will print 'unknown'.
> >=20
> > +	np =3D of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "fsl,imx8mq-ocotp");
> > +	if (!np)
> > +		goto out;
> > +
> > +	ocotp_base =3D of_iomap(np, 0);
> > +	WARN_ON(!ocotp_base);
> > +
> > +	magic =3D readl_relaxed(ocotp_base + IMX8MQ_SW_INFO_B1);
> > +	if (magic =3D=3D IMX8MQ_SW_MAGIC_B1)
> > +		rev =3D REV_B1;
>=20
> Turns out that imx8mq version determination is uniquely messy. I think
> we should try to print the revision number even for older chips so that
> we know how old they are, but this code can be enhanced in later
> patches.
>=20

Fair enough. I believe we should stick to B1 only for now though.

> In the vendor tree we handle this with a SIP call to ATF, it's not
> clear why we shouldn't just upstream that (in both ATF and Linux).
>=20

Question here is: do we need to go through psci for things like revision ?
I believe the cost is not worth it.

> Also, there are some imx soc revision declarations in
> include/soc/imx/revision.h. Those are implemented in arch/arm/mach-imx
> for older chips, would it make sense for soc-imx8 to define
> imx_get_soc_revision?
>=20

I'm totally against the use of imx_get_soc_revision everywhere. Plus,
according to our internal tree there doens't seem to indicate a need for
such a thing for imx8. Anyway, that can be added later on if necessary.

> --
> Regards,
> Leonard=