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: <019301dc5f4a$e9aadd60$bd009820$@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2025 12:07:04 +0900
From: 손신 <shin.son@...sung.com>
To: "'Tudor Ambarus'" <tudor.ambarus@...aro.org>, "'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>,
	<shin.son@...sung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v7 RESEND 2/3] thermal: exynos_tmu: Support new hardware
 and update TMU interface

Hello, Tudor Ambarus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tudor Ambarus [mailto:tudor.ambarus@...aro.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2025 6:22 PM
> 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@...sung.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.

Yes, Do you have any plans to upstream the GS101 TMU code? From what I understand,
Autov9 and exynos850 are unlikely to be upstreamed in their current form.

> 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.

I kind of admit that.

> 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.

However, I am not sure whether Exynos2200, 7885, 990, 9810, 8890, 8895, or FSD share the same TMU hardware layout as exynosautov920.
So I’m wondering whether the EXYNOS9 prefix should be limited to GS101 and eav920, or if we should consider a different prefix that better reflects the grouping.

> > 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.

Ok, I'll reconsider this based on your clarification. Thank you for the detailed feedback.

> 
> Thanks!
> ta

Best regards,
Shin