From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Coquelin Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 0/3] Introduce the /proc/socinfo and use it to export OMAP data Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:23:03 +0100 Message-ID: <4D6DFE67.3020801@stericsson.com> References: <1273587331-24604-1-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@nokia.com> <20110216115729.GA29817@besouro.research.nokia.com> <4D6B78BF.1020102@stericsson.com> <4D6C7B56.9060109@codeaurora.org> <4D6D9B10.9000606@codeaurora.org> <4D6D9D06.2020204@bluewatersys.com> <4D6D9FC7.1090206@codeaurora.org> <4D6DA290.2010607@bluewatersys.com> <4D6DAA24.3000204@codeaurora.org> <4D6DAE6E.4030701@bluewatersys.com> <4D6DB1B1.4060908@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4D6DB1B1.4060908@codeaurora.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Saravana Kannan Cc: ext Nishanth Menon , ext Tony Lindgren , Peter De-Schrijver , ext Linus Walleij , Ambresh , Jouni Hogander , Lee Jones , Russell King , Jonas ABERG , ext Kevin Hilman , David Brown , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Loic PALLARDY , "eduardo.valentin@nokia.com" , Ryan Mallon , Linux-OMAP , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Daniel Walker , LKML , Andrei Warkentin List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 03/02/2011 03:55 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 03/01/2011 06:41 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote: >> On 03/02/2011 03:23 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> I don't have any attachment to the "arch" file suggestion. If there is a >>> better solution to identify the different implementations of socinfo >>> without having to maintain some "unique id" list in the kernel, then I'm >>> all for it. But cpuinfo is not it. >> Sorry I am confusing the 'arch' and 'mach' bits here. I definitely have >> an objection to having an 'arch' file (i.e. ARM). A 'mach' (i.e. omap) >> file makes a bit more sense, but should probably be called 'mach' rather >> than 'arch' to avoid this confusion :-). > Sorry for the confusion. Sure, I don't care much for the filename as > long as we can all agree on it. I care more about the content of the > file (using names very close to xxxx in mach-xxxx). I like "soc-family" > better since it's generic enough to not force, say omap3 and omap4, to > report different values. > > Linus Walleij, Eduardo, Maxime, Andrei, > > Would like to hear your opinion on the file name (soc-family vs. mach vs > ) and the path /sys/devices/system/soc/. > > If we settle on this, may be it would be easier to get this through. > I think we should have a tree like this : /sys/devices/system/soc/ /sys/devices/system/soc/unique_id<- Unified way to export an ID for all machs /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/ /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/name<- Name of the mach /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/foo_id /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/bar_id<- Vendors may have several/different IDs to export (IDCODE for OMAP, Production ID...) Linus, do you agree? >> I still think it is a solution in search of a problem though. What >> userspace programs need to know what specific SoC they are on? My >> feeling is that if userspace needs to know this information, then it is >> probably dicking around with things that should be managed by the >> kernel. Differences in available peripherals, etc can be determined by >> looking at existing sysfs files. > I certainly have seen several use cases. Couple of easy examples: > > * A lot of test scripts would find this very useful. For example, some > clock (present is all/most MSMs) shouldn't be tested on some SOCs as it > would lock up the system if you try to turn it off while the CPU is running. > > * Some of the user space tools might want to report different "product > id/type" (nothing to do with USB, etc) depending on what SOC it is > running on. > For example, we have some user-space tools which need to have serial number to write it in logs. > Thank, > Saravana > P.S: Removed felipe.balbi@nokia.com since I > keep getting delivery failure emails. > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.coquelin-nonst@stericsson.com (Maxime Coquelin) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 09:23:03 +0100 Subject: [PATCHv5 0/3] Introduce the /proc/socinfo and use it to export OMAP data In-Reply-To: <4D6DB1B1.4060908@codeaurora.org> References: <1273587331-24604-1-git-send-email-eduardo.valentin@nokia.com> <20110216115729.GA29817@besouro.research.nokia.com> <4D6B78BF.1020102@stericsson.com> <4D6C7B56.9060109@codeaurora.org> <4D6D9B10.9000606@codeaurora.org> <4D6D9D06.2020204@bluewatersys.com> <4D6D9FC7.1090206@codeaurora.org> <4D6DA290.2010607@bluewatersys.com> <4D6DAA24.3000204@codeaurora.org> <4D6DAE6E.4030701@bluewatersys.com> <4D6DB1B1.4060908@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <4D6DFE67.3020801@stericsson.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/02/2011 03:55 AM, Saravana Kannan wrote: > On 03/01/2011 06:41 PM, Ryan Mallon wrote: >> On 03/02/2011 03:23 PM, Saravana Kannan wrote: >>> I don't have any attachment to the "arch" file suggestion. If there is a >>> better solution to identify the different implementations of socinfo >>> without having to maintain some "unique id" list in the kernel, then I'm >>> all for it. But cpuinfo is not it. >> Sorry I am confusing the 'arch' and 'mach' bits here. I definitely have >> an objection to having an 'arch' file (i.e. ARM). A 'mach' (i.e. omap) >> file makes a bit more sense, but should probably be called 'mach' rather >> than 'arch' to avoid this confusion :-). > Sorry for the confusion. Sure, I don't care much for the filename as > long as we can all agree on it. I care more about the content of the > file (using names very close to xxxx in mach-xxxx). I like "soc-family" > better since it's generic enough to not force, say omap3 and omap4, to > report different values. > > Linus Walleij, Eduardo, Maxime, Andrei, > > Would like to hear your opinion on the file name (soc-family vs. mach vs > ) and the path /sys/devices/system/soc/. > > If we settle on this, may be it would be easier to get this through. > I think we should have a tree like this : /sys/devices/system/soc/ /sys/devices/system/soc/unique_id<- Unified way to export an ID for all machs /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/ /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/name<- Name of the mach /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/foo_id /sys/devices/system/soc/mach/bar_id<- Vendors may have several/different IDs to export (IDCODE for OMAP, Production ID...) Linus, do you agree? >> I still think it is a solution in search of a problem though. What >> userspace programs need to know what specific SoC they are on? My >> feeling is that if userspace needs to know this information, then it is >> probably dicking around with things that should be managed by the >> kernel. Differences in available peripherals, etc can be determined by >> looking at existing sysfs files. > I certainly have seen several use cases. Couple of easy examples: > > * A lot of test scripts would find this very useful. For example, some > clock (present is all/most MSMs) shouldn't be tested on some SOCs as it > would lock up the system if you try to turn it off while the CPU is running. > > * Some of the user space tools might want to report different "product > id/type" (nothing to do with USB, etc) depending on what SOC it is > running on. > For example, we have some user-space tools which need to have serial number to write it in logs. > Thank, > Saravana > P.S: Removed felipe.balbi at nokia.com since I > keep getting delivery failure emails. >