> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/16] Add support for the Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC > > On 06/08/2025 11:05, Pankaj Dubey wrote: > > > >> Also SAME strict DT compliance profile will be applied. (see more on > >> that below) > >> > >>> > >>> Given that ARTPEC-8 is a distinct SoC with its own set of IPs, we believe > it's > >> reasonable > >>> to create a separate directory for it, similar to FSD. > >> > >> No. It was a mistake for FSD to keep it separate why? Because there is > >> no single non-Samsung stuff there. I am afraid exactly the same will > >> happen there. > >> > > > > I am not sure, why you are saying this as a mistake, in case next version of > FSD > > > My mistake that I agreed on that, based on promise that "there will be > non Samsung stuff" and that "non Samsung stuff" never happened. > I am not authorized to comment on FSD's non Samsung stuff at this moment. But I got your point. > > or ARTPEC is manufactured (ODM) by another vendor in that case, won't it > > create problems? > > > No problems here. Non-Samsung Artpec/Axis soc will not go there. It will > go the top-level axis directory, just like artpec-6 > Okay, understood. I assume Axis team will be fine with this approach. Let me align with them internally and address all the review comments in v2. > > > > > For example ARTPEC-6/7 (ARM based) have their own directories as > "arch/arm/boot/dts/axis/" > > These were not Samsung (ODM) manufactures SoCs. > > > > But ARTPEC-8/9 (ARM64) based SoCs are samsung manufactured. What if > the next version say > > ARTPEC-10 is not samsung manufactured, so different version of products > (SoCs) from > > same vendor (OEM), in this case Axis, will have code in separate directories > and with different maintainers? > > It will be the same with Google Pixel for whatever they decide in the > future. dts/exynos/google/ + dts/google/. > > I know that this is not ideal, but for me grouping samsung stuff > together is far more important, because there is much, much more to > share between two SoCs designed by Samsung, than Axis-9 and future > non-Samsung Axis-10. And I have `git grep` as argument: > git grep compatible -- arch/arm64/boot/dts/tesla/ > > and point me to any Tesla IP. Zero results. > > > > > >> Based on above list of blocks this should be done like Google is done, > >> so it goes as subdirectory of samsung (exynos). Can be called axis or > >> artpec-8. > > > > I will suggest to keep axis, knowing the fact that sooner after artpec-8 > patches gets approved and merged > > we have plan to upstream artpec-9 (ARM64, Samsung manufactured) as > well. > > > >> > >> To clarify: Only this SoC, not others which are not Samsung. > >> > >>> > >>> We will remove Samsung and Coasia teams from the maintainers list in > v2 > >> and only > >>> Axis team will be maintainer. > >> > >> A bit unexpected or rather: just use names of people who WILL be > >> maintaining it. If this is Jesper and Lars, great. Just don't add > >> entries just because they are managers. > > > > AFAIK, Jesper will be taking care. > > > >> > >>> > >>> Maintainer list for previous generation of Axis chips (ARM based) is > already > >> present, > >>> so this will be merged into that. > >> > >> Existing Artpec entry does not have tree mentioned, so if you choose > >> above, you must not add the tree, since the tree is provided by Samsung > SoC. > >> > > > > OK > > > >> OTOH, how are you going to add there strict DT compliance? Existing axis > >> is not following this, but artpec-8, as a Samsung derivative, MUST > >> FOLLOW strict DT compliance. And this should be clearly marked in > >> maintainer entry, just like everywhere else. > >> > > > > As I said this is tricky situation, though artpec-8 is derivative of samsung, we > can't confirm > > if future versions (> 9) will be samsung derivative. > > > > But this would be case for all such custom ASIC manufactured by samsung, > so I would like to > > understand how this will be handled? > > > I suggest to do the same as Google and when I say Google in this email, > I mean Pixel/GS101. Google was easier because there was no prior entry > and Axis has, so you will have two Axis entries. But I don't see how we > can add clean-dts profiles to the existing Axis entry, if you decide to > include Artpec-8 in that one. > Okay we will have separate dts profile aligned with Exynos DT compliance for ARM64 based Axis SoCs which are manufactured by Samsung at this moment. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
