[GIT PULL 1/7] soc/tegra: Changes for v5.20-rc1

[Jon Hunter]

On 13/07/2022 13:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

...

>>> For the other patches, I found two more problems:
>>>
>>>> Bitan Biswas (1):
>>>>        soc/tegra: fuse: Expose Tegra production status
>>>
>>> Please don't just add random attributes in the soc device infrastructure.
>>> This one has a completely generic name but a SoC specific
>>> meaning, and it lacks a description in Documentation/ABI.
>>> Not sure what the right ABI is here, but this is something that needs
>>> to be discussed more broadly when you send a new version.
>>
>> I wasn't aware that the SoC device infrastructure was restricted to only
>> standardized attributes. Looks like there are a few other outliers that
>> add custom attributes: UX500, ARM Integrator and RealView, and OMAP2.
>>
>> Do we have some other place where this kind of thing can be exposed? Or
>> do we just need to come up with some better way of namespacing these?
>> Perhaps it would also be sufficient if all of these were better
>> documented so that people know what to look for on their platform of
>> interest.
> 
> It's not a 100% strict rule, I've just tried to limit it as much as possible,
> and sometimes missed drivers doing it anyway. My main goal here is
> to make things consistent between SoC families, so if one piece of
> information is provided by a number of them, I'd rather have a standard
> attribute, or a common way of encoding this in the existing attributes
> than to have too many custom attributes with similar names.


Makes sense. Any recommendations for this specific attribute? I could 
imagine other vendors may have engineering devices and production 
versions. This is slightly different from the silicon version.

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic