Re: [PATCH RFC 04/10] ARM: cortina: Add support for the CS75xx SoC family

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026, at 13:01, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 12:57 PM Fil Dunsky <filipp.dunsky@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 30/09/2026 12:20, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>
>> > How is it different from Cortina Gemini?
>>
>> Apart from the vendor, they have little in common. Gemini (SL3516/
>> CS3516) is a single ARMv4 FA526 with Faraday peripherals (FTINTC010,
>> FTTMR010, FTGPIO010, a 16550 UART) and builds for ARCH_MULTI_V4. The
>> CS75xx ("Goldengate G2") is an ARMv7 dual Cortex-A9 MPCore with GIC,
>> SCU, TWD/global timer and a PL310, and its UART, GPIO, interrupt
>> controller and NAND controller are different blocks from the Gemini
>> ones. So it cannot share mach-gemini or its drivers.

https://wikidevi.wi-cat.ru/Cortina explains a little more about the
timeline here.

As far as I can tell, both the Storlink/Storm Gemini SL351x/CS351x and
the original Cortina Systems CS75xx ended up in Cortina Access
when Realtek bought that business unit in 2015, but got discontinued
in the meantime:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150729020021/http://www.cortina-access.com/dhp

The rest of what was Cortina Systems at the time remained up in
Inphy and later in Marvell, who I assume hold the naming rights.

>> >> +machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_CORTINA_CS75XX)       += cortina
>> >
>> > Arch should be rather per entire family, not one SoC.
>>
>> CS75xx is meant as the family (the vendor kernel covers the CS7522 and
>> CS7542 with one ARCH_GOLDENGATE), but I see the name reads like a
>> single part. Following Linus' suggestion of mach-goldengate, v2 will
>> use ARCH_GOLDENGATE and arch/arm/mach-goldengate for the whole family.
>
> Put the rationale into the commit message, that's exactly what we want to
> see in there.

How about making this one ARCH_CORTINA_ACCESS to match the 64-bit port
(saturn, venus) that Jason posted at
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20260610112821.3030099-5-jason.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

I think this would be consistent with how we deal with other
acquisitions (storm->cortina, freescale->nxp, ...). I would
leave Gemini as-is because changing the name only causes problems,
but for the new platform I would use the current name of the company
that last sold them.
 
      Arnd