| Message ID | 20231211132600.25289-1-vaishnav.a@ti.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | soc: ti: k3-socinfo: Add JTAG ID for J722S | expand |
On 12/11/23 7:26 AM, Vaishnav Achath wrote: > Add JTAG ID info for the J722S SoC family to enable SoC detection. > > More details about this SoC can be found in the TRM: > https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/sprujb3 > > Signed-off-by: Vaishnav Achath <vaishnav.a@ti.com> > --- Simple enough, Reviewed-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> Although I do question our use of the J7x names. All of our parts here also have a "Sitara AMxx" branding. For instance here we could call this new device by its "AM67" name, then J784S4 renamed as AM69, etc. Then we would have a consistent naming (internally we will have to deal with the part name madness, but why expose that externally if we don't have to). Andrew > > Bootlog with changes: > https://gist.github.com/vaishnavachath/23d859925277df9ccd628190e7c23371 > > drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c b/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c > index 7517a9c8c8fa..59101bf7cf23 100644 > --- a/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c > +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ > #define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J784S4 0xBB80 > #define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62AX 0xBB8D > #define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62PX 0xBB9D > +#define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J722S 0xBBA0 > > static const struct k3_soc_id { > unsigned int id; > @@ -56,6 +57,7 @@ static const struct k3_soc_id { > { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J784S4, "J784S4" }, > { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62AX, "AM62AX" }, > { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62PX, "AM62PX" }, > + { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J722S, "J722S" }, > }; > > static const char * const j721e_rev_string_map[] = {
On 09:19-20231212, Andrew Davis wrote: > On 12/11/23 7:26 AM, Vaishnav Achath wrote: > > Add JTAG ID info for the J722S SoC family to enable SoC detection. > > > > More details about this SoC can be found in the TRM: > > https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/sprujb3 > > > > Signed-off-by: Vaishnav Achath <vaishnav.a@ti.com> > > --- > > Simple enough, > > Reviewed-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> > > Although I do question our use of the J7x names. All of our parts here > also have a "Sitara AMxx" branding. For instance here we could call > this new device by its "AM67" name, then J784S4 renamed as AM69, etc. > Then we would have a consistent naming (internally we will have to deal > with the part name madness, but why expose that externally if we don't > have to). J722S is a new die and the core part, what rebranding/spins happens to it is subject to mktg group, not going to hold this series with that.
On 12/12/23 9:42 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09:19-20231212, Andrew Davis wrote: >> On 12/11/23 7:26 AM, Vaishnav Achath wrote: >>> Add JTAG ID info for the J722S SoC family to enable SoC detection. >>> >>> More details about this SoC can be found in the TRM: >>> https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/sprujb3 >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vaishnav Achath <vaishnav.a@ti.com> >>> --- >> >> Simple enough, >> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Davis <afd@ti.com> >> >> Although I do question our use of the J7x names. All of our parts here >> also have a "Sitara AMxx" branding. For instance here we could call >> this new device by its "AM67" name, then J784S4 renamed as AM69, etc. >> Then we would have a consistent naming (internally we will have to deal >> with the part name madness, but why expose that externally if we don't >> have to). > > J722S is a new die and the core part, what rebranding/spins happens to it is > subject to mktg group, not going to hold this series with that. > Never said to hold the series (I even gave my R-B), just a suggestion for later. Or more important when we add the DTB and other names to be consistent and use the correct part names and not always use the parent/die/family name. Andrew
Hi Vaishnav Achath, On Mon, 11 Dec 2023 18:56:00 +0530, Vaishnav Achath wrote: > Add JTAG ID info for the J722S SoC family to enable SoC detection. > > More details about this SoC can be found in the TRM: > https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/sprujb3 > > I have applied the following to branch ti-drivers-soc-next on [1]. Thank you! [1/1] soc: ti: k3-socinfo: Add JTAG ID for J722S commit: 2c2235292b33d788a1436f1d2a6108184a657f51 All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent up the chain during the next merge window (or sooner if it is a relevant bug fix), however if problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted. You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed. If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing patches will not be replaced. Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying to this mail. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/ti/linux.git
diff --git a/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c b/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c index 7517a9c8c8fa..59101bf7cf23 100644 --- a/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c +++ b/drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ #define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J784S4 0xBB80 #define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62AX 0xBB8D #define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62PX 0xBB9D +#define JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J722S 0xBBA0 static const struct k3_soc_id { unsigned int id; @@ -56,6 +57,7 @@ static const struct k3_soc_id { { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J784S4, "J784S4" }, { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62AX, "AM62AX" }, { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_AM62PX, "AM62PX" }, + { JTAG_ID_PARTNO_J722S, "J722S" }, }; static const char * const j721e_rev_string_map[] = {
Add JTAG ID info for the J722S SoC family to enable SoC detection. More details about this SoC can be found in the TRM: https://www.ti.com/lit/zip/sprujb3 Signed-off-by: Vaishnav Achath <vaishnav.a@ti.com> --- Bootlog with changes: https://gist.github.com/vaishnavachath/23d859925277df9ccd628190e7c23371 drivers/soc/ti/k3-socinfo.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)