[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9729c3c2-787e-2894-ddfb-fc9c07d74086@marcan.st>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2021 23:30:08 +0900
From: Hector Martin <marcan@...can.st>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@...all.nl>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Mohamed Mediouni <mohamed.mediouni@...amail.com>,
Stan Skowronek <stan@...ellium.com>,
Alexander Graf <graf@...zon.com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/25] dt-bindings: arm: apple: Add bindings for Apple
ARM platforms
On 16/02/2021 02.48, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 09:16:50PM +0900, Hector Martin wrote:
>> +description: |
>> + Apple ARM ("Apple Silicon") platforms should contain compatible strings
>> + in the following format:
>> +
>> + - apple,j274 (board/device ID)
>> + - apple,m1 (SoC name)
>> + - apple,arm-platform (Apple Silicon)
>
> This description is irrelevant because the rules come from schema below.
> Maybe instead write few words about the platform? Or describe how to get
> the board/device ID if it is not obvious?
Good point. Actually, I've gone back and forth over this a few times,
but I'm going to change the SoC name. Apple calls these things by 5
different names, but the only two that make any sense to consider are
the marketing name ("m1") and the SoC name ("t8103"). I'm going to
switch to the latter (so `apple,t8103`).
In the past, Apple have dual-sourced SoCs with different IDs under the
same marketing name, and Apple themselves name most of their compatible
properties after the lowest-compatible SoC name, so I'm going to go with
that after all. This will save us grief in the future if they do that
again, and I think I get to pick the color of this bike shed :)
Given that, I expanded a bit on the description. Let me know what you think:
description: |
ARM platforms using SoCs designed by Apple Inc., branded "Apple Silicon".
This currently includes devices based on the "M1" SoC, starting with the
three Mac models released in late 2020:
- Mac mini (M1, 2020)
- MacBook Pro (13-inch, M1, 2020)
- MacBook Air (M1, 2020)
The compatible property should follow this format:
compatible = "apple,<targettype>", "apple,<socid>", "apple,arm-platform";
<targettype> represents the board/device and comes from the `target-type`
property of the root node of the Apple Device Tree, lowercased. It can be
queried on macOS using the following command:
$ ioreg -d2 -l | grep target-type
<socid> is the lowercased SoC ID. Apple uses at least *five* different
names for their SoCs:
- Marketing name ("M1")
- Internal name ("H13G")
- Codename ("Tonga")
- SoC ID ("T8103")
- Package/IC part number ("APL1102")
Devicetrees should use the the lowercased SoC ID, to avoid confusion if
multiple SoCs share the same marketing name. This can be obtained from
the `compatible` property of the arm-io node of the Apple Device Tree,
which can be queried as follows on macOS:
$ ioreg -n arm-io | grep compatible
--
Hector Martin (marcan@...can.st)
Public Key: https://mrcn.st/pub
Powered by blists - more mailing lists