Re: [PATCH] soc: ti: k3-socinfo: Fix the silicon revision misprint

[Neha Malcom Francis]

Hi Nishanth

On 13/09/23 16:58, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> On 12:07-20230912, Neha Malcom Francis wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > +void
> > > > +k3_chipinfo_silicon_rev(unsigned int variant,
> > > > +			struct soc_device_attribute *soc_dev_attr)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	const char *family_name = soc_dev_attr->family;
> > > > +	int j721e_lookup_arr_size = ARRAY_SIZE(soc_revision_j721e);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!strcmp(family_name, "J721E") && variant < j721e_lookup_arr_size) {
> > > > +		soc_dev_attr->revision = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "SR%s", soc_revision_j721e[variant]);
> > > > +	} else {
> > > > +		variant++;
> > > > +		soc_dev_attr->revision = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "SR%x.0", variant);
> > > > +	}
> > >
> > > I am not comfortable with if else here. Why not extend k3_soc_id
> > > structure to include the variant LuT? Are there exceptions to this rule
> > > (Say AM65x?), those would make sense to handle with a compare against
> > > the partno?
> >
> > Trying to revive this patch, I see what you are saying is similar to the way
> > detection has already been implemented in U-Boot (drivers/soc/soc_ti_k3.c)
> > if I'm not mistaken.
>
> Yes.
>
> > But I can't find any existing exception to this "family --> version" rule
> > that forces us to use "partno --> version". Checked through all AM65x device
> > TRMs available in ti.com; all seem to use common partno. So maybe I am not
> > on the same page, did you mean something else?
>
> https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/spruid7e/spruid7e.pdf
> CTRLMMR_WKUP_JTAGID:: VARIANT field: SR2.0: 1h SR1.0: 0h
> Latest data sheet: https://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/am6548.pdf
> indicates SR 2.1
>
> How is this detected?

Detection of the ".x" bit is still a WIP and needs some alignment internally 
before I can add that patch. So for now, working on cleaning up the known issues 
of the driver.

> What I indicated is a LUT table similar to
> https://git.ti.com/cgit/k3conf/k3conf/tree/common/socinfo.c#n382
>
> This allows a switch statement to handle custom SR handling schemes or
> use LUT with variants that use VARIANT field to handle things properly.

This makes sense, will work on the patch accordingly. Thanks!

> [...]

--
Thanking You
Neha Malcom Francis