Hi Krzysztof,

On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 20:21, Krzysztof Kozlowski
[off-list ref] wrote:

On 30/07/2021 17:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

On 30/07/2021 16:49, Sam Protsenko wrote:

quoted

This patch series adds initial platform support for Samsung Exynos850
SoC [1]. With this patchset it's possible to run the kernel with BusyBox
rootfs as a RAM disk. More advanced platform support (like MMC driver
additions) will be added later. The idea is to keep the first submission
minimal to ease the review, and then build up on top of that.

[1] https://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/exynos/products/mobileprocessor/exynos-850/

Great work!

Thanks, Krzysztof! And thank you for reviewing the whole series.

quoted

What's the SoC revision number (should be accessible via
/sys/bus/soc/devices/soc0/)? Recent wrap in numbering of Exynos chips
might bring confusion...

# cat /sys/devices/soc0/revision
0

Judging by vendor's sources it is quite confusing. It looks mostly like
Exynos3830 but in few other cases it uses Exynos9 compatibles (Exynos9,
Exynos9820). Only in few places there is Exynos850. Marketing department
made it so confusing...  The revision embedded in SoC would be very
interesting.

As I understand, this SoC is called Exynos850 everywhere now.
Exynos3830 is its old name, not used anymore. As you noticed from
patch #2, it shares some definitions with Exynos9 SoC, so I guess some
software is similar for both architectures. Not sure about hardware
though, never worked with Exynos9 CPUs. Anyway, I asked Samsung
representatives about naming, and it seems like we should stick to
"Exynos850" name, even in code.

Anyway, judging by current versioning, there is a risk Samsung will come
with a new chipset name conflicting with existing ones. It already
overflowed.

It's even worse with a thingy called "Exynos9 auto" which hides
numbering even more.


Best regards,
Krzysztof