linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add ROCK 2A/2F, Sige1 and NanoPi Zero2

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <6d93c92d-2bba-4247-960d-5f2e5e12b594@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 20:07:44 +0200
From: Alex Bee <knaerzche@...il.com>
To: Chukun Pan <amadeus@....edu.cn>
Cc: devicetree@...r.kernel.org, heiko@...ech.de, jonas@...boo.se,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, ziyao@...root.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6] arm64: dts: rockchip: Add ROCK 2A/2F, Sige1 and
 NanoPi Zero2


Am 21.07.25 um 16:00 schrieb Chukun Pan:
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but as I told
>> before I actually *own* this board in the non-development version and it
>> has an RK3528 SoC/silkscreen - I just was too lazy to photograph it my own
>> but I did now [0]
> I have the MangoPi M28S, M28K and M28C boards.
> The M28K board does have a silkscreen of RK3528A. [2]
Nope.

Are you really questioning my picture? Ridiculous ... see [0]
> Regardless of whether the silkscreen is RK3528 or RK3528A,
> U-Boot reports that the SoC on these boards is RK3528A. (via OTP [1])
> So one possibility is that Rockchip forgot to update the silkscreen.
>
> Comparison chip block diagram:
> 1. Earlier version: https://docs.armsom.org/img/sige/rk3528.png
> 2. Final   version: https://docs.radxa.com/img/e/e20c/radxa-e20c-chip-diagram.webp
>
> The difference seems to be that RK3528 uses I2S while RK3528A uses SAI.
> But from the updated diagram here [3], RK3528 also uses the SAI interface.
>
> Rockchip BSP does not make any distinction between RK3528 and RK3528A,
> so it is meaningless to continue to worry about non-A versions.
I'm sort of impressed on with which conviction you continue to claim plain
wrong things: [1], [2], [3].
I'm fine if upstream decides not to care. But it is and remains wrong to
claim that the other version does not exist - otherwise I doubt Rockchip
would have gone to the trouble of building the distinction into their SDK
AND publishing different datasheets.

[0] https://wikidevi.wi-cat.ru/MangoPi_M28K

[1] https://github.com/HermanChen/mpp/blob/develop/osal/mpp_soc.c#L957-L982

[2] 
https://github.com/rockchip-linux/kernel/blob/develop-6.1/drivers/soc/rockchip/rockchip-cpuinfo.c#L212-L218

[3] 
https://github.com/rockchip-linux/u-boot/commit/89e1f532de7747d2e962644330666fb1b465926b

> [1] https://github.com/u-boot/u-boot/blob/master/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rk3528/rk3528.c#L131
> [2] https://x.com/mangopi_sbc/status/1847851624804602316?t=5hwScxgwCAAid0eCJgrP5w&s=19
> [3] https://x.com/mangopi_sbc/status/1785115827437760769?t=H5PXRDwbjOfBYa7QotjIZw&s=19
>
> --
> 2.25.1
>