[PATCH 18/21] arm64: dts: google: Add initial Google gs101 SoC support
Krzysztof Kozlowski
krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org
Thu Oct 5 12:21:46 PDT 2023
On 05/10/2023 19:59, William McVicker wrote:
> On 10/05/2023, Peter Griffin wrote:
>> Google gs101 SoC is ARMv8 mobile SoC found in the Pixel 6,
>> (oriole) Pixel 6a (bluejay) and Pixel 6 pro (raven) mobile
>> phones. It features:
>> * 4xA55 little cluster
>> * 2xA76 Mid cluster
>> * 2xX1 Big cluster
>>
>> This commit adds the basic device tree for gs101 (SoC) and oriole
>> (pixel 6). Further platform support will be added over time.
>>
>> It has been tested with a minimal busybox initramfs and boots to
>> a shell.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin at linaro.org>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms | 6 +
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile | 1 +
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/Makefile | 6 +
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101-oriole.dts | 68 +
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101-pinctrl.dtsi | 1134 +++++++++++++++++
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101-pinctrl.h | 17 +
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101.dtsi | 501 ++++++++
>> 7 files changed, 1733 insertions(+)
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/Makefile
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101-oriole.dts
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101-pinctrl.dtsi
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101-pinctrl.h
>> create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/google/gs101.dtsi
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
>> index 6069120199bb..a5ed1b719488 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
>> @@ -107,6 +107,12 @@ config ARCH_EXYNOS
>> help
>> This enables support for ARMv8 based Samsung Exynos SoC family.
>>
>> +config ARCH_GOOGLE_TENSOR
>> + bool "Google Tensor SoC fmaily"
>> + depends on ARCH_EXYNOS
>> + help
>> + Support for ARMv8 based Google Tensor platforms.
>
> I'd like to bring up this thread and discuss the option of not introducing
> another ARCH_* config:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20200306103652.GA3634389@kroah.com/
>
> I especially don't like the "depends on ARCH_EXYNOS" because that forces one to
> include all the other Exynos drivers that ARCH_EXYNOS selects that Google
Since we are creating unified kernel images, having other drivers is not
a problem.
> Tensor SoCs don't need. Can we consider using SOC_GOOGLE instead and for all
SOC_GOOGLE will work exactly the same and depend on ARCH_EXYNOS or
appear everywhere as ARCH_EXYNOS. We already had this talk with Tesla.
> drivers that actually depend on the SoC hardware, we can just add "depends on
> SOC_GOOGLE"?
>
> The idea is that drivers should be tied to hardware -- not a specific vendor.
And hardware is Exynos. Tesla FSD and Google Tensor is Exynos, even if
you do no like calling it.
> By making drivers depend on ARCH_*, you are introducing an arbitrary vendor
> dependency and not a hardware dependency.
There is no arbitrary dependency. We call it all Exynos hardware,
because this is Exynos.
I remember what you were pushing for removal of ARCH_EXYNOS and there
waas clear feedback, not only from me: this is against communities goals.
>
> Thanks,
> Will
Please trim the replies from unrelated context.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list