[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20250723134019.1076352-1-amadeus@jmu.edu.cn>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2025 21:40:19 +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,
> Nope.
>
> Are you really questioning my picture? Ridiculous ... see [0]
No, I mean some boards of this model have SoC silkscreen RK3528 and
others have RK3528A. The same is true for another Hinlink H28K SBC.
> I'm sort of impressed on with which conviction you continue to claim
> plain wrong things: [1], [2], [3].
If you spend a few minutes running mainline u-boot or BSP kernel
on your RK3528 board before blaming me:
BL31:
INFO: rk_otp_init finish!
INFO: RK3528 SoC (0x101)
mainline u-boot:
------
U-Boot 2025.07-...
Model: Generic RK3528
SoC: RK3528A
------
BSP kernel:
[ 0.768514] rockchip-cpuinfo cpuinfo: SoC : 35281000
[ 0.768990] rockchip-cpuinfo cpuinfo: Serial : ...
> I'm fine if upstream decides not to care. But it is and remains wrong
> to claim that the other version does not exist
Unless Rockchip says they fused the wrong OTP during production.
Regardless of the SoC silkscreen, the chip type on OTP is the same,
so how does Rockchip distinguish these chips?
--
2.25.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists