linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v7 RESEND 2/3] thermal: exynos_tmu: Support new hardware and update TMU interface

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: <401ed9b9-19a4-4a19-b397-0f353e9f0c97@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 11:21:36 +0200
From: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>
To: 손신 <shin.son@...sung.com>,
 'Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz' <bzolnier@...il.com>,
 'Krzysztof Kozlowski' <krzk@...nel.org>,
 "'Rafael J . Wysocki'" <rafael@...nel.org>,
 'Daniel Lezcano' <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
 'Zhang Rui' <rui.zhang@...el.com>, 'Lukasz Luba' <lukasz.luba@....com>,
 'Rob Herring' <robh@...nel.org>, 'Conor Dooley' <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 'Alim Akhtar' <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>, youngmin.nam@...sung.com
Cc: 'Henrik Grimler' <henrik@...mler.se>, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 'Peter Griffin' <peter.griffin@...aro.org>,
 'André Draszik' <andre.draszik@...aro.org>,
 'William McVicker' <willmcvicker@...gle.com>, jyescas@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 RESEND 2/3] thermal: exynos_tmu: Support new hardware
 and update TMU interface

Hi, Shin Son,

On 11/26/25 9:19 AM, 손신 wrote:
>> Looking at the exynosautov9 registers that you described and comparing
>> them with
>> gs101 I see just 2 differences:
>> 1/ exnosautov2 has a TRIMINFO_CONFIG2 register, while gs101 doesn't 2/
>> EXYNOSAUTOV920_PEND register fields differ from GS101
> TRIMINFO_CONFIG2 doesn't exist on eav920 either; I simply misnamed it.
> However, the PEND register indeed differs from GS101.
> 
>> Given the similarities, and considering the EXYNOS9_ registers rename from:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/20251117074140.4090939-5-
>> youngmin.nam@...sung.com/
>> would it make sense to use the SoC-era name instead of specific SoC, i.e.
>> s/EXYNOSAUTOV920_/EXYNOS9_ and use the latter for both exynosautov9 and
>> gs101?
>>
> First of all, as far as I know, EXYNOS9 is not the same as exynosautov9, and exynosautov920 also differs from exynosautov9.

See also see this patch, or maybe the entire patch set:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/20251117074140.4090939-2-youngmin.nam@samsung.com/

It's not just autov9 and gs101 that have similar TMU registers (with the two
exceptions AFAICT), it's also exynos850 that seems identical with autov9.

All seem to be part of the same "Exynos9-era" SoCs. Let's think about how
gs101/exynos850 TMU addition will follow. Shall one use the EXYNOSAUTOV920
registers? That seems misleading. Shall one redefine the entire register set?
That won't fly because of the code duplication.

Thus I propose to use the EXYNOS9 prefix for the register definitions, and if
there are SoCs with slight differences, that can be handled with compatible
match data and specific SoC definitions, but only where things differ.

> So while sharing a common prefix is a good suggestion in general, I believe it's not appropriate here
> Because the register definitions are not fully compatible across these SoCs. Using a common name array may introduce confusion later.

Please reconsider this. Maybe Youngmin Nam or others can intervene.

Thanks!
ta