[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250721140016.308800-1-amadeus@jmu.edu.cn>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 22:00:16 +0800
From: Chukun Pan <amadeus@....edu.cn>
To: knaerzche@...il.com
Cc: amadeus@....edu.cn,
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
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]
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.
[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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists