Messages in this thread | | | From | Abel Vesa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] soc: imx: Add generic i.MX8 SoC driver | Date | Wed, 27 Feb 2019 08:41:17 +0000 |
| |
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'. > > > > + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "fsl,imx8mq-ocotp"); > > + if (!np) > > + goto out; > > + > > + ocotp_base = of_iomap(np, 0); > > + WARN_ON(!ocotp_base); > > + > > + magic = readl_relaxed(ocotp_base + IMX8MQ_SW_INFO_B1); > > + if (magic == IMX8MQ_SW_MAGIC_B1) > > + rev = REV_B1; > > 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. >
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). >
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? >
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
| |