On 10/07/2025 09:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Thu, Jul 10, 2025, at 02:20, ksk4725@coasia.com wrote:

quoted

From: sungminpark <redacted>

Add initial device tree support for Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC and Grizzly board.
This SoC contains four cores of cortex-a53 CPUs and other various
peripheral IPs.

quoted

diff --git a/MAINTAINERS b/MAINTAINERS
index fa1e04e87d1d..371005f3f41a 100644
--- a/MAINTAINERS
+++ b/MAINTAINERS

@@ -2320,6 +2320,20 @@ F:	drivers/crypto/axis
 F:	drivers/mmc/host/usdhi6rol0.c
 F:	drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec*

+ARM/ARTPEC ARM64 MACHINE SUPPORT
+M:	Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>
+M:	Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@samsung.com>
+M:	SeonGu Kang <ksk4725@coasia.com>
+M:	SungMin Park <smn1196@coasia.com>
+L:	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-subscribers)
+L:	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
+L:	linux-arm-kernel@axis.com
+S:	Maintained
+F:	Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/axis,artpec*-clock.yaml
+F:	arch/arm64/boot/dts/axis/
+F:	drivers/clk/samsung/clk-artpec*.c
+F:	include/dt-bindings/clock/axis,artpec*-clk.h

I'm trying to understand the SoC family tree here. I see that
you have an entry for ARTPEC SoCs above it, which currently
covers artpec6 (Cortex-A9, apparently not Samsung based).

Is the reason for having two entries here that artpec6/7 and
artpec8/9 are two separate SoC families, or is this just because
they are using 32-bit and 64-bit cores, respectively?

These should be entirely different families. Artpec6 was not done by
Samsung and this one - Artpec 8 - is basically Samsung SoC, just like
they did designs for Tesla and Google GS101.

I don't know about Artpec 9.

All this should be explained in DTS or bindings commit msg, btw.

quoted

+config ARCH_ARTPEC
+	bool "Axis Communications ARTPEC SoC Family"
+	help
+	   This enables support for the ARMv8 based ARTPEC SoC Family.
+
+config ARCH_ARTPEC8
+	bool "Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC Platform"
+	depends on ARCH_ARTPEC
+	depends on ARCH_EXYNOS
+	select ARM_GIC
+	help
+	  This enables support for the Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC.
+

I would prefer to be less fine-grained here, especially as
it seems that ARTPEC9 is again quite similar to ARTPEC8, as
far as I can guess from public information.

Could you fold both entries into a single ARCH_ARTPEC?

So far ARCH_ARTPEC = ARCH_ARTPEC8, so obviously it can be folded. I
don't know if Artpec 9 will ever be upstreamed. This Artpec 8 is like 4
or 5 year effort - they sent first patches some years ago, but DTS was
not ready. Therefore I think we should not assume there will be Artpec 9
yet. If it comes, we can always split things.


Best regards,
Krzysztof