[PATCH 2/3] dt-bindings: arm: amlogic: Add SoC information bindings

[Rob Herring]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 04:10:30PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> On 03/31/2017 03:44 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 10:47 AM, Neil Armstrong
> > <narmstrong at baylibre.com> wrote:
> >> Add bindings for the SoC information register of the Amlogic SoCs.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong <narmstrong at baylibre.com>
> >> ---
> >>  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.txt | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> >>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.txt
> >> index bfd5b55..b850985 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/amlogic.txt
> >> @@ -52,3 +52,23 @@ Board compatible values:
> >>    - "amlogic,q201" (Meson gxm s912)
> >>    - "nexbox,a95x" (Meson gxbb or Meson gxl s905x)
> >>    - "nexbox,a1" (Meson gxm s912)
> >> +
> >> +Amlogic Meson GX SoCs Information
> >> +----------------------------------
> >> +
> >> +The Meson SoCs have a Product Register that allows to retrieve SoC type,
> >> +package and revision information. If present, a device node for this register
> >> +should be added.
> >> +
> >> +Required properties:
> >> +  - compatible: For Meson GX SoCs, must be "amlogic,meson-gx-socinfo".
> >> +  - reg: Base address and length of the register block.
> >> +
> >> +Examples
> >> +--------
> >> +
> >> +       chipid at 220 {
> >> +               compatible = "amlogic,meson-gx-socinfo";
> >> +               reg = <0x0 0x00220 0x0 0x4>;
> >> +       };
> >> +
> > 
> > The register location would hint that this is in the middle of some block of
> > random registers, i.e. a syscon or some unrelated device.
> > 
> > Are you sure that "socinfo" is the actual name of the IP block and that
> > it only has a single 32-bit register?
> > 
> >      Arnd
> > 
> 
> Hi Arnd,
> 
> I'm sorry I did not find any relevant registers in the docs or source code describing
> it in a specific block of registers, and no close enough register definitions either.
> They may be used by the secure firmware I imagine.
> 
> For the register name, Amlogic refers it to "cpu_version" in their code, but it really
> gives some details on the whole SoC and package, and socinfo seems better.

A register at address 0x220 seems a bit strange (unless there's ranges 
you're not showing), but ROM code at this address would be fairly 
typical. And putting version information into the ROM is also common.

Rob