[RFC PATCH 0/9] initial support for "suniv" Allwinner new ARM9 SoC

[Icenowy Zheng]

于 2018年1月25日 GMT+08:00 下午11:35:20, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> 写到:
>Hi,
>
>On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 09:10:34PM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> 在 2018年1月22日星期一 CST 下午8:14:35，Maxime Ripard 写道：
>> > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 07:17:26AM +0800, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
>> > > This is the RFC initial patchset for the "new" Allwinner SUNIV
>ARM9 SoC.
>> > > 
>> > > The same die is packaged differently, come with different
>co-packaged
>> > > DRAM or shipped with different SDK; and then made many model
>names: F23,
>> > > F25, F1C100A, F1C100S, F1C200S, F1C500, F1C600, R6, etc. These
>SoCs all
>> > > share a common feature set and are packaged similarly (eLQFP128
>for SoCs
>> > > without co-packaged DRAM, QFN88 for with DRAM). As their's no
>> > > functionality hidden on the QFN88 models (except DRAM interface
>not
>> > > exported), it's not clever to differentiate them. So I will use
>suniv as
>> > > common name of all these SoCs.
>> > 
>> > Where is that suniv prefix coming from?
>> 
>> The BSP (Melis and Linux). (e.g. "libs/suniv" directory of the Melis
>SDK and 
>> "arch/arm/boot/dts/sunivw1p1.dtsi" in the Linux SDK)
>
>Do you have a link to that BSP?

I have it on the Baidu Pan. Is it acceptable?

>
>> > You should really answer two questions here:
>> >   - Are you able to predict whether you'll find an SoC part of that
>> >     family in the future that derives a bit and will need a
>compatible
>> >     of its own?
>> >   - Are you able to predict which quirks we'll need along the way
>to
>> >     support all the SoCs you've listed there?
>> > 
>> > If you can't answer yes to both these questions, with a 100%
>> > certainty, then you'll need a SoC name in the compatible.
>> > 
>> > Which doesn't prevent you from sharing as much as possible the DT
>like
>> > we did between the A10s and the A13 for example.
>> 
>> So the suniv-f1c100s.dtsi will still be kept empty and all
>peripherals known 
>> should go through suniv.dtsi.
>
>Sorry if I wasn't really clear. You can totally keep the current DT
>structure if that makes sense (and judging by what you're saying, it
>does.), but the compatibles should have the SoC name in it.

Okay.

>
>Maxime