Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Add support for the Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC

On 06/08/2025 11:05, Pankaj Dubey wrote:

quoted

quoted

Also SAME strict DT compliance profile will be applied. (see more on
that below)

quoted

Given that ARTPEC-8 is a distinct SoC with its own set of IPs, we believe

it's

quoted

quoted

reasonable

quoted

to create a separate directory for it, similar to FSD.

No. It was a mistake for FSD to keep it separate why? Because there is
no single non-Samsung stuff there. I am afraid exactly the same will
happen there.

I am not sure, why you are saying this as a mistake, in case next version of

FSD


My mistake that I agreed on that, based on promise that "there will be
non Samsung stuff" and that "non Samsung stuff" never happened.

I am not authorized to comment on FSD's non Samsung stuff at this moment.
But I got your point.

quoted

or ARTPEC is manufactured (ODM) by another vendor in that case, won't it
create problems?

No problems here. Non-Samsung Artpec/Axis soc will not go there. It will
go the top-level axis directory, just like artpec-6

Okay, understood. I assume Axis team will be fine with this approach.
Let me align with them internally and address all the review comments in v2. 

quoted

For example ARTPEC-6/7 (ARM based) have their own directories as

"arch/arm/boot/dts/axis/"

quoted

These were not Samsung (ODM) manufactures SoCs.

But ARTPEC-8/9 (ARM64) based SoCs are samsung manufactured. What if

the next version say

quoted

ARTPEC-10 is not samsung manufactured, so different version of products

(SoCs) from

quoted

same vendor (OEM), in this case Axis, will have code in separate directories

and with different maintainers?

It will be the same with Google Pixel for whatever they decide in the
future. dts/exynos/google/ + dts/google/.

I know that this is not ideal, but for me grouping samsung stuff
together is far more important, because there is much, much more to
share between two SoCs designed by Samsung, than Axis-9 and future
non-Samsung Axis-10. And I have `git grep` as argument:
git grep compatible -- arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/

and point me to any Tesla IP. Zero results.

quoted

quoted

Based on above list of blocks this should be done like Google is done,
so it goes as subdirectory of samsung (exynos). Can be called axis or
artpec-8.

I will suggest to keep axis, knowing the fact that sooner after artpec-8

patches gets approved and merged

quoted

we have plan to upstream artpec-9 (ARM64, Samsung manufactured) as

well.

quoted

quoted

To clarify: Only this SoC, not others which are not Samsung.

quoted

We will remove Samsung and Coasia teams from the maintainers list in

v2

quoted

quoted

and only

quoted

Axis team will be maintainer.

A bit unexpected or rather: just use names of people who WILL be
maintaining it. If this is Jesper and Lars, great. Just don't add
entries just because they are managers.

AFAIK, Jesper will be taking care.

quoted

quoted

Maintainer list for previous generation of Axis chips (ARM based) is

already

quoted

quoted

present,

quoted

so this will be merged into that.

Existing Artpec entry does not have tree mentioned, so if you choose
above, you must not add the tree, since the tree is provided by Samsung

SoC.

quoted

quoted

OK

quoted

OTOH, how are you going to add there strict DT compliance? Existing axis
is not following this, but artpec-8, as a Samsung derivative, MUST
FOLLOW strict DT compliance. And this should be clearly marked in
maintainer entry, just like everywhere else.

As I said this is tricky situation, though artpec-8 is derivative of samsung, we

can't confirm

quoted

if future versions (> 9) will be samsung derivative.

But this would be case for all such custom ASIC manufactured by samsung,

so I would like to

quoted

understand how this will be handled?

I suggest to do the same as Google and when I say Google in this email,
I mean Pixel/GS101. Google was easier because there was no prior entry
and Axis has, so you will have two Axis entries. But I don't see how we
can add clean-dts profiles to the existing Axis entry, if you decide to
include Artpec-8 in that one.

Okay we will have separate dts profile aligned with Exynos DT compliance for
ARM64 based Axis SoCs which are manufactured by Samsung at this moment. 

Best regards,
Krzysztof