lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Aug]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 12/12] arm64: dts: exynos: Add Exynos850 SoC support
    From
    Date
    On 06/08/2021 14:32, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
    > On 06/08/2021 14:07, Sam Protsenko wrote:
    >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 at 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski
    >> <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> On 06/08/2021 01:06, Sam Protsenko wrote:
    >>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2021 at 12:03, Krzysztof Kozlowski
    >>>> <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> This patch adds minimal SoC support. Particular board device tree files
    >>>>>> can include exynos850.dtsi file to get SoC related nodes, and then
    >>>>>> reference those nodes further as needed.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
    >>>>>> ---
    >>>>>> .../boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-pinctrl.dtsi | 782 ++++++++++++++++++
    >>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-usi.dtsi | 30 +
    >>>>>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850.dtsi | 245 ++++++
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not buildable. Missing Makefile, missing DTS. Please submit with initial
    >>>>> DTS, otherwise no one is able to verify it even compiles.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This device is not available for purchase yet. I'll send the patch for
    >>>> board dts once it's announced. I can do all the testing for now, if
    >>>> you have any specific requests. Would it be possible for us to review
    >>>> and apply only SoC support for now? Will send v2 soon...
    >>>
    >>> What you propose is equal to adding a driver (C source code) without
    >>> ability to compile it. What's the point of having it in the kernel? It's
    >>> unverifiable, unbuildable and unusable.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Yes, I understand. That's adding code with no users, and it's not a
    >> good practice.
    >>
    >>> We can review the DTSI however merging has to be with a DTS. Usually the
    >>> SoC vendor adds first an evalkit (e.g. SMDK board). Maybe you have one
    >>> for Exynos850? Otherwise if you cannot disclose the actual board, the
    >>> DTSI will have to wait. You can submit drivers, though.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Sure, let's go this way. I'll send v2 soon. Improving patches and
    >> having Reviewed-by tag for those would good enough for me at this
    >> point. I'll continue to prepare another Exynos850 related patches
    >> until the actual board is announced, like proper clock driver, reset,
    >> MMC, etc. Is it ok if I send those for a review too (so I can fix all
    >> issues ahead)?
    >
    > Sure, prepare all necessary drivers earlier. I suspect clocks will be a
    > real pain because of significant changes modeled in vendor kernel. I
    > remember Paweł Chmiel (+Cc) was doing something for these:
    > https://github.com/PabloPL/linux/tree/exynos7420
    >
    > I mentioned before - you should also modify the chipid driver. Check
    > also other drivers in drivers/soc/samsung, although some are needed only
    > for suspend&resume.
    >

    You can also take a look at Exynos8895 efforts:
    https://github.com/ivoszbg/linux/commits/for-upstream/exynos8895

    Since knowledge, datasheets and efforts are quite spread all over, I
    keep track of some work here:
    https://exynos.wiki.kernel.org/community


    Best regards,
    Krzysztof

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2021-08-06 14:51    [W:3.419 / U:0.016 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site