Message-ID: <13cf3223-d3fb-1a3e-f13a-77db3b6d144c@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 27 Feb 2023 15:46:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.2
From:   neil.armstrong@linaro.org
Reply-To: neil.armstrong@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/3] Meson A1 32-bit support
To:     Dmitry Rokosov <ddrokosov@sberdevices.ru>, arm@kernel.org,
        soc@kernel.org
Cc:     Alexey Romanov <avromanov@sberdevices.ru>, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, khilman@baylibre.com,
        jbrunet@baylibre.com, martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com,
        linus.walleij@linaro.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel@sberdevices.ru
References: <20230222115020.55867-1-avromanov@sberdevices.ru>
 <8e5f9bfa-d612-cd43-d722-d04c40938c62@linaro.org>
 <20230227142809.kujmrraf3pcdhqyn@CAB-WSD-L081021>
Content-Language: en-US
Organization: Linaro Developer Services
In-Reply-To: <20230227142809.kujmrraf3pcdhqyn@CAB-WSD-L081021>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 27/02/2023 15:28, Dmitry Rokosov wrote:
> Hello Neil!
> 
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 09:15:04AM +0100, neil.armstrong@linaro.org wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> I'm aware Amlogic also runs their kernel as 32bit to gain a few kbytes
>> of memory, but those processors are ARMv8 and the arm64 arch code
>> has been designed for those CPUs.
>>
>> So far I didn't find a single good reason to add 32bit support for
>> ARMv8 Amlogic based SoCs, if you have a solid reason please share.
> 
> I totally agree with you, but I suppose it's fully related to 'big'
> Amlogic SoC like S905_ or A311_ series. A113L (aka 'a1') is
> a cost-efficient dual-core SoC which is used for small, cheap solutions
> with cheap components. Every cent is important during BoM development.
> That's why usually ODMs install small ROM and RAM capacity, and each
> megabyte is important for RAM/ROM kernel and rootfs footprints.

Do you have figures ? is 32bit ARM kernel really lighter when ARM64 one is correctly configured ?

> Why am I talking about rootfs? For such small projects a good
> choice is buildroot rootfs assembling framework. Unfortunatelly,
> buildroot doesn't support 'compat' mode when kernel and userspace have
> a different bitness. 

well this is a buildroot problem... the kernel itself is perfectly capable
of running an AArch32 userspace.

> In the internal project, we save several
> percents of ROM/RAM free space using 32-bit configuration (mostly rootfs
> ROM space, to be honest). Therefore, for such 'little' cost-efficient
> SoCs we can make an exception and support 32-bit configuration, from my
> point of view.

32bit ARM is now "legacy", I would need to have an advice from the ARM SoC
maintainers, but AFAIK new ARMv8 SoCs should stay in arm64 arch.

Arnd ? Olof ? do you have an opinion on this ?

> 
> What do you think about that?

>>
>> And as Krzysztof stated, the support is incomplete and cannot work
>> without a dts file.
> 
> Agreed, we shouldn't merge dead code. But there are several question to
> discuss there. Please check my reply to Krzysztof message.
> 
> [...]
>