Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: Add SoC info driver

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Wed 26 Oct 07:05 PDT 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 7:20:42 PM CEST Imran Khan wrote:
> > On 10/26/2016 2:19 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 3:23:34 PM CEST Imran Khan wrote:
> > >> On 10/21/2016 4:03 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > >>>> +/* socinfo: sysfs functions */
> > >>>
> > >>> This seems overly verbose, having both raw and human-readable
> > >>> IDs is generally not necessary, pick one of the two. If you
> > >>> need any fields that we don't already support in soc_device,
> > >>> let's talk about adding them to the generic structure.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Okay. I will go for human readable IDs. Can we add 2 more fields
> > >> in the generic structure.
> > >> These 2 fields would be:
> > >>
> > >> vendor: A string for vendor name
> > >> serial_number: A string containing serial number for the platform
> > > 
> > > 
> > > serial_number seems straightforward, adding this seems like a good
> > > idea. I don't understand yet what would go into the vendor field
> > > though. For this particular driver, is it always "Qualcomm", or
> > > would it be a third-party that makes a device based on that chip?
> > > 
> > 
> > As we are talking about generic soc_device_attribute fields, I was hoping that
> > having a vendor field would be helpful as along with family it would provide
> > a more thorough information. Also as more than one foundries may be used for 
> > a soc, can we have a field say foundry_id to provide this information.
> 
> My first feeling is that this 'vendor' information can should be
> derived from the family.

In [1] Geert just put the vendor directly into "family", while Imran
uses "Snapdragon" (which I find reasonable in the Qualcomm case). But it
seems like Geert would like a "vendor" as well, rather than a "family".


And if "family" really is supposed to contain the "SoC family name" and
we're trying to provide user space with some useful information (for
some reason), should we just rely on the unlikeliness of two vendors
using the same family name?

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1261742.html

Regards,
Bjorn