From: Hari Prasath <hidden> Date: 2021-08-12 14:08:09
A new dtsi file for sama5d29 SoC is added which basically inherits the sama5d2
dtsi with the mac controller compatible property updated.
Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <redacted>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d29.dtsi | 16 ++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/arm/boot/dts/sama5d29.dtsi
From: Hari Prasath <hidden> Date: 2021-08-12 14:08:24
Add comments for the end user for modifying the DTS file for
instantiating the sama5d29 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <redacted>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d2_xplained.dts | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
Hello,
On 12/08/2021 19:37:58+0530, Hari Prasath wrote:
quoted hunk
Add comments for the end user for modifying the DTS file for
instantiating the sama5d29 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <redacted>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d2_xplained.dts | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
I guess it would be better to have a at91-sama5d29_xplained.dts (and we
should have had a at91-sama5d27_xplained.dts), else, you can't create an
image that will support both variants.
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
Hello,
On 13/08/21 12:56 am, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
Hello,
On 12/08/2021 19:37:58+0530, Hari Prasath wrote:
quoted
Add comments for the end user for modifying the DTS file for
instantiating the sama5d29 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <redacted>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d2_xplained.dts | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
I guess it would be better to have a at91-sama5d29_xplained.dts (and we
should have had a at91-sama5d27_xplained.dts), else, you can't create an
image that will support both variants.
The new SoC 'sama5d29' belongs to the same sama5d2 family. It is
essentially a new chip revision of the existing sama5d27 with a new GMAC
controller IP that addresses few silicon issues. There wouldn't be
separate evaluation boards that shall be made but we will be using the
existing sama5d2 XPlained boards itself but with the new SoC populated.
Hence we have taken this approach of having a separate DTSI file and
reuse the existing board specific DTS file.
We don't want to create single image that will support both variants. In
fact, we don't want our customers to enable certain features that are
broken at the silicon level in the existing revision of the SoC i.e
sama5d27. Instead, they could do this change manually and use it in the
new SoC i.e sama5d29.
Regards,
Hari
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
On 19/08/2021 10:56:21+0000, Hari.PrasathGE@microchip.com wrote:
Hello,
On 13/08/21 12:56 am, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
quoted
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
Hello,
On 12/08/2021 19:37:58+0530, Hari Prasath wrote:
quoted
Add comments for the end user for modifying the DTS file for
instantiating the sama5d29 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <redacted>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d2_xplained.dts | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
I guess it would be better to have a at91-sama5d29_xplained.dts (and we
should have had a at91-sama5d27_xplained.dts), else, you can't create an
image that will support both variants.
The new SoC 'sama5d29' belongs to the same sama5d2 family. It is
essentially a new chip revision of the existing sama5d27 with a new GMAC
controller IP that addresses few silicon issues. There wouldn't be
separate evaluation boards that shall be made but we will be using the
existing sama5d2 XPlained boards itself but with the new SoC populated.
That's what I understood but a board with a different SoC is a
different board.
Hence we have taken this approach of having a separate DTSI file and
reuse the existing board specific DTS file.
We don't want to create single image that will support both variants. In
fact, we don't want our customers to enable certain features that are
broken at the silicon level in the existing revision of the SoC i.e
sama5d27. Instead, they could do this change manually and use it in the
new SoC i.e sama5d29.
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com> Date: 2021-09-21 09:44:46
On 19/08/2021 at 13:20, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
On 19/08/2021 10:56:21+0000, Hari.PrasathGE@microchip.com wrote:
quoted
Hello,
On 13/08/21 12:56 am, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
quoted
Hello,
On 12/08/2021 19:37:58+0530, Hari Prasath wrote:
quoted
Add comments for the end user for modifying the DTS file for
instantiating the sama5d29 SoC.
Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <redacted>
---
arch/arm/boot/dts/at91-sama5d2_xplained.dts | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
I guess it would be better to have a at91-sama5d29_xplained.dts (and we
should have had a at91-sama5d27_xplained.dts), else, you can't create an
image that will support both variants.
The new SoC 'sama5d29' belongs to the same sama5d2 family. It is
essentially a new chip revision of the existing sama5d27 with a new GMAC
controller IP that addresses few silicon issues. There wouldn't be
separate evaluation boards that shall be made but we will be using the
existing sama5d2 XPlained boards itself but with the new SoC populated.
That's what I understood but a board with a different SoC is a
different board.
The problem that we have right now is that the official board sama5d2
Xplained will never be officially released with a sama5d29 SoC. There's
basically no available board with this chip.
We added this "hint" as a comment to our historical board but it's true
that it might be confusing.
For now, I'm taking only the first patch of the series. If the need
arise, we'll create the proper board DTS file.
quoted
Hence we have taken this approach of having a separate DTSI file and
reuse the existing board specific DTS file.
We don't want to create single image that will support both variants. In
fact, we don't want our customers to enable certain features that are
broken at the silicon level in the existing revision of the SoC i.e
sama5d27. Instead, they could do this change manually and use it in the
new SoC i.e sama5d29.
Yes, understood. The intention was not to create another different board
but to give a hint, should customer replace themselves the SoC on
official sama5d2 xplained board (like we did internally). Use case is
probably so unlikely that we might just forget about it (for now at least).
Best regards,
Nicolas
--
Nicolas Ferre
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com> Date: 2021-09-21 10:34:47
On 12/08/2021 at 16:07, Hari Prasath wrote:
A new dtsi file for sama5d29 SoC is added which basically inherits the sama5d2
dtsi with the mac controller compatible property updated.
Signed-off-by: Hari Prasath <redacted>
Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
And added to our at91-dt branch for 5.16.
Best regards,
Nicolas