[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOX2RU5qE-3_K+QMqkUQU5MO2P_nN5gpZVYG5JTUdxYf5oQ7SQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2023 19:33:23 +0200
From: Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>
Cc: agross@...nel.org, andersson@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] dt-bindings: arm: qcom,ids: Add IDs for IPQ5018 family
On Tue, 2 May 2023 at 11:51, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1.05.2023 23:22, Robert Marko wrote:
> > On Mon, 1 May 2023 at 14:51, Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29.04.2023 21:33, Robert Marko wrote:
> >>> Add SOC IDs for the IPQ5018 family.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <robimarko@...il.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h | 8 ++++++++
> >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> >>> index 802495b20276..c1283bad81e1 100644
> >>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/arm/qcom,ids.h
> >>> @@ -216,6 +216,9 @@
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SM8350 439
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QCM2290 441
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SM6115 444
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5010 446
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5018 447
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5028 448
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SC8280XP 449
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_IPQ6005 453
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QRB5165 455
> >>> @@ -229,6 +232,9 @@
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SM8450_3 482
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SC7280 487
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SC7180P 495
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5000 503
> >>
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ0509 504
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ0518 505
> >> Are you sure these names are in tact?
> >
> > Hi,
> > They should be correct, I am seeing them being used downstream
> > and in end products as well, IPQ0509 being one of those weird ones
> > that integrate 256MB of RAM on the die as well.
> Hmmm.. it's sketchy and weird-sounding, but also appealing in a way
>
> I got caught off-guard with the leading zeroes, but probably qcom
> just didn't want to mess with the IPQabcd scheme!
I would guess the same that they wanted to keep the naming scheme
intact, I also thought it was an error but then I found FCC images with
the IPQ0509 SoC being actually used.
Regards,
Robert
>
> Konrad
> >
> > Regards,
> > Robert
> >
> >>
> >> Konrad
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SM6375 507
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9514 510
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9550 511
> >>> @@ -236,6 +242,7 @@
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9570 513
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9574 514
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_SM8550 519
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5016 520
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_IPQ9510 521
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QRB4210 523
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QRB2210 524
> >>> @@ -243,6 +250,7 @@
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1000 539
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1000 545
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QDU1010 587
> >>> +#define QCOM_ID_IPQ5019 569
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1032 588
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1052 589
> >>> #define QCOM_ID_QRU1062 590
Powered by blists - more mailing lists