Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220113121143.22280-1-alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
 <CGME20220113122408epcas5p45053d1bf0acf2d8233a98b6c1abab6eb@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
 <20220113121143.22280-14-alim.akhtar@samsung.com> <53c17ddc-a049-72ed-7237-de23db7889da@canonical.com>
 <085801d80967$e4b8fe00$ae2afa00$@samsung.com> <5ab62673-8d46-ec1d-1c80-696421ab69ca@canonical.com>
 <00c901d80ba5$c9ae6ab0$5d0b4010$@samsung.com>
In-Reply-To: <00c901d80ba5$c9ae6ab0$5d0b4010$@samsung.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 17 Jan 2022 15:14:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a31bCHNcNWrLX+QW+4RuK=DBpxLA_j5BFKxXxXKCT8PFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/23] dt-bindings: arm: add Tesla FSD ARM SoC
To:     Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com>
Cc:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>,
        "moderated list:ARM/SAMSUNG EXYNOS ARM ARCHITECTURES" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>, linux-fsd@tesla.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 2:26 PM Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com> wrote:
>
> >I cannot judge how different this is from Exynos subarchitecture - looking at
> >patches it is not different - so I could understand a FSD sub-arch with only one
> >SoC.
> >
> I understand, it is a bit difficult to visualize it with the current patch set.
> As discuss on the other thread, FSD is different, more over the vendor is different, internal design is different.

Is it based on another SoC design then? Most new SoCs are derived from
some other
one, so it makes sense to put it into the same family. E.g. the Apple
M1 takes bits from
both Exynos and PA-Semi SoCs but has more newly added components than
either one.

I would argue that if this SoC shares the pinctrl, clock, spi, adc,
and timer implementation
with Exynos, we should consider it part of the Exynos family,
regardless of what other
blocks may exist next to those.

       Arnd