linux-kernel - Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/4] SoC base drivers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <46376AD9.3020701@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 01 May 2007 20:29:13 +0400
From:	Dmitry Krivoschekov <dmitry.krivoschekov@...il.com>
To:	Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@...il.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk,
	kernel-discuss@...dhelds.org
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/4] SoC base drivers

Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
> Hello Dmitry,
>
> Tuesday, May 1, 2007, 4:53:09 PM, you wrote:
>
>> I think your referring to the term "SoC (system-on-chip)" is confusing
>> (at least for me). You rather consider companion chips than SoCs.
>
>> Yes, any chip integrating a number of controllers could be considered
>> as a system-on-chip but if the chip doesn't make sense without
>> some master chip (processor) I'd consider the chip as a companion
>> (to the processor) chip.
>
>         Ditto for me - I find "companion" thing confusing. What's
> important for the RFC/topic discussed is that it is integrated
> controller with many diversified functions, not what it is helper to
> something. 
It's exactly helper. It helps to expand functionality of a main
processor.
> I understand that for many people SoC means CPU with ties,
> but IMHO, it's less stretch to take such chip, remove CPU, and still
> call it a SoC,
I do not know any chip that would be "just add a CPU and you'll get
a complete system", do you?

>  than call an integrated audio/touchscreen controller a
> companion chip (well, of course it is; and RAM chip too ;-) ).
>
>         Either way, I don't pledge to be a HW designer with
> contemporary lexicon. The aim was simple - as a single word would be
> too ambiguous, general, or vice-versa, omitting, then acronym is
> needed, hopefully existing, and not new, and SoC is the most fitting
> TLA, IMHO.
If you used ASIC acronym it would be more appropriate and not so
ambiguous.

What kind of chips you deal with does not fit ASIC acronym?
>  But I'm open to specific suggestions for improvement. For
> example, if I was to write a Documentation/ entry for that, I'd mention
> companion chips, peripheral/integrated controllers, etc.
"peripheral/integrated controllers" are also within companion chips.

Every type of CMOS devices may be a part of processor chip or
may be a standalone chip as well as a group of CMOS devices
may be a part of the proc chip or may organize a standalone chip.

When your chip is missing a processor device then it is not
a system but a part of a system, you can not build a complete
system on a such chip, so you can not call it a "system-on-chip".
>  But renaming
> drivers/soc/ to drivers/companion/ would be more confusing,
Not for me.
>  as the
> concept described is not tied to companion chips per se (even though
> many of chips we (handhelds.org) deal with, can be classified as
> such).
>
>

Regards,
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/