Re: [PATCH 0/4] Introducing Exynos ChipId driver

[Rob Herring]

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 10:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Saturday 03 May 2014 15:11:36 Pankaj Dubey wrote:
>> This patch series attempts to get rid of soc_is_exynosXXXX macros
>> and eventually with the help of this series we can probably get
>> rid of CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOSXXXX in near future.
>> Each Exynos SoC has ChipID block which can give information about
>> SoC's product Id and revision number. Currently we have single
>> DT binding information for this as "samsung,exynos4210-chipid".
>> But Exynos4 and Exynos5 SoC series have one small difference in
>> chip Id, with resepect to product id bit-masks. So it means we
>> should have separate compatible string for these different series
>> of SoCs. So I have created new binding information for handling
>> this difference. Also currently I can think of putting this driver
>> code under "drivers/misc/" but suggestions are welcome.
>> Also current form of driver is missing platfrom driver and needs
>> init function to be called from machine file (either exynos.c or
>> platsmp.c). I hope lot of suggestions and comments to improve this
>> further.
>>
>> This patch series is based on Kukjin Kim's for-next (3.14_rc1 tag)
>> and prepared on top of following patch series and it's dependent
>> patch series.
>
> I think putting it into drivers/soc would be most appropriate.
> We already have a few drivers lined up that we want in there,
> although the directory currently doesn't exist.
>
> However, I would ask that you use the infrastructure provided by
> drivers/base/soc.c when you add this driver, to also make the
> information available to user space using a standard API.

Agreed.

> Ideally this should be done by slightly restructuring the DT
> source to make all on-chip devices appear below the soc node.
> We'd have to think a bit about how to best do this while
> preserving compatibility with existing dts files.

I don't agree. How is a block with chip ID info the parent of all the
other devices?

In doing some work to move default of_platform_populate out of
platforms, I noticed that most platforms using the soc device are
making it the parent of platform devices. I think this is either wrong
or all platforms should have a default soc device. It makes little
sense for some platforms to have a devices under a soc sysfs directory
while others do not. Or the location changes when a platform latter
adds the soc device.

Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/