linux-kernel - [PATCH v2 0/3] Add initial devicetree for Turing RK1

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 16:58:20 -0600
From:   Sam Edwards <cfsworks@...il.com>
To:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Kukieła <daniel@...iela.pl>,
        Sven Rademakers <sven.rademakers@...il.com>,
        Lokesh Poovaragan <loki@...meapis.com>,
        Sam Edwards <CFSworks@...il.com>
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/3] Add initial devicetree for Turing RK1

Hi again list,

This is the second version of my patch to bring in support for the RK3588-based
Turing RK1 SoM. In my previous cover letter, I perhaps should have specified
that the RK1 is a little bit unusual in that, though it *is* a true SoM, it is
targeted toward home-hosting/edge users directly as a compute node, and as a
result the vast majority of users will be seeing it more like a
micro-bladeserver, rather than an off-the-shelf part meant to power a larger
system. This was my rationale for previously sending this as a single .dts,
targeting that use case.

However, Heiko previously made a good point that it still depends on a carrier
board to be "complete," and then I reminded myself that not all users will be
treating the RK1 like a mere "node" -- some will be incorporating them into
larger carriers, which the RK1 is meant to enable (not the other way around).

This version tries to strike a compromise, by moving the SoM-specific stuff to
a .dtsi, introducing a .dts specifically for the "opinionated" view of the RK1
as a carrier-agnostic node, and adding another paragraph to the PATCH 3/3
changelog explaining that.

I am wondering if there will be an objection about the .dts having the exact
same base filename and `compatible` as the .dtsi. I am not sure what word/term
to use to mean "RK1 but thought of as the system itself and not as a piece of a
system," but am open to suggestions. :)

Cheers all,
Sam

Sam Edwards (3):
  dt-bindings: vendor-prefixes: add turing
  dt-bindings: arm: rockchip: Add Turing RK1
  arm64: dts: rockchip: Add Turing RK1 SoM support

 .../devicetree/bindings/arm/rockchip.yaml     |   5 +
 .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml  |   2 +
 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/Makefile         |   1 +
 .../boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-turing-rk1.dts   |  21 +
 .../boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-turing-rk1.dtsi  | 623 ++++++++++++++++++
 5 files changed, 652 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-turing-rk1.dts
 create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3588-turing-rk1.dtsi

-- 
2.41.0