On Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 09:56:01PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

On 31/10/2021 18:53, David Virag wrote:

quoted

Exynos 7885 has product id "0xE7885000". Add this id to the ids with
the name.

Thanks for the patch!

quoted

The downstream driver sets sub_rev to 2 if we are on Exynos 7885, we
detected sub_rev 1 and the 27th bit of the revision register is set.

There is no revision register in older Exynos boards, so it seems you
speak about new version, but please mention it explicitly.

Yes, the 7885 has the new version with seperate registers, that can be
used with the 850 compatible.

quoted

This is presumably because Samsung might have set the wrong bits on
rev2 of the SoC in the chipid, but we may never know as we have no
manual.

Both the SM-A530F/jackpotlte with Exynos7885 and the SM-M305/m30lte
with Exynos7904 (rebranded Exynos7885 with lower clock speeds) seem
to have this bit set to 1 and have a sub_rev of 1 otherwise, but the
downstream driver corrects it to 2.
Let's replicate this behaviour in upstream too!

No, let's don't replicate weird vendor behavior without understanding
it, unless there is reason to. Please describe the reason or drop it.

Fair enough, I included it because as I understand Samsung made a
mistake in this revision's chipid regs and set a wrong bit, so if that
bit is set we should report revision 2 as it is actually rev2 just with
a broken chipid. At least this is what I think has happened but we'll
probably never know. Will remove in v2 then.

quoted

Signed-off-by: David Virag <redacted>
---
 drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-chipid.c | 9 +++++++++
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-chipid.c b/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-chipid.c
index a28053ec7e6a..ec8c76275aec 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-chipid.c
+++ b/drivers/soc/samsung/exynos-chipid.c

@@ -55,6 +55,7 @@ static const struct exynos_soc_id {
 	{ "EXYNOS5440", 0xE5440000 },
 	{ "EXYNOS5800", 0xE5422000 },
 	{ "EXYNOS7420", 0xE7420000 },
+	{ "EXYNOS7885", 0xE7885000 },

This looks good, but please rebase on:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/20211031205212.59505-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com/T/#u (local)
because we use one compatible for entire family and I would like to have
it documented which family is this here.

Sure.

quoted

 	{ "EXYNOS850", 0xE3830000 },
 	{ "EXYNOSAUTOV9", 0xAAA80000 },
 };

@@ -88,6 +89,14 @@ static int exynos_chipid_get_chipid_info(struct regmap *regmap,
 	}
 	main_rev = (val >> data->main_rev_shift) & EXYNOS_REV_PART_MASK;
 	sub_rev = (val >> data->sub_rev_shift) & EXYNOS_REV_PART_MASK;
+
+	//Exynos 7885 revision 2 apparently has the 27th bit set instead of having
+	//a sub_rev of 2. Correct for this!

Not a Linux kernel comment. This will go away anyway, but please read
the coding style and use scripts/checkpatch.pl for future patches.

I did run checkpatch on it and it said nothing but yeah I forgot about
that. My bad!

quoted

+	if (soc_info->product_id == 0xE7885000) {
+		if ((sub_rev == 1) && (val & 0x04000000))
+			sub_rev = 2;
+	}
+
 	soc_info->revision = (main_rev << EXYNOS_REV_PART_SHIFT) | sub_rev;
 
 	return 0;

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Best regards,
David

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel