From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: m-karicheri2@ti.com (Murali Karicheri) Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:31:48 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags In-Reply-To: <56056FD9.5060000@ti.com> References: <1442938118-4718-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1442938118-4718-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5602ED34.9010108@oracle.com> <56040323.1080409@ti.com> <560406C2.6090200@ti.com> <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> <560565AF.2010701@oracle.com> <56056FD9.5060000@ti.com> Message-ID: <560BF254.2040509@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/25/2015 12:01 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09/25/2015 10:18 AM, santosh shilimkar wrote: >> On 9/25/2015 7:50 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > [...] >>> But, how about userspace >>> needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on >>> board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that? Believe it or not, user space tools that are custom to a specific SoC would require such knowledge. So I agree on this front that a SoC specific compatibility is cool to have. I think that should have been clear in the commit description. My Acked-By: Murali Karicheri >>> >> Why the user space should care about exact SOC ? > > examples vary - trivial one is: debug tools like omapconf[1] or testing > tools like opentest[2] need some standard way to ensure Linux kernel is > functional - trusting the least set of parameters is usually what we > would prefer. while building a generic distro such as debian or yocto, > one prefers NOT to need to do a package build per SoC/perboard - that > never scales. instead, you'd like the same application run on different > systems dynamically. > > > [1] https://github.com/omapconf/omapconf > [2] http://arago-project.org/wiki/index.php/Opentest > -- Murali Karicheri Linux Kernel, Keystone From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Murali Karicheri Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:31:48 -0400 Message-ID: <560BF254.2040509@ti.com> References: <1442938118-4718-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1442938118-4718-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5602ED34.9010108@oracle.com> <56040323.1080409@ti.com> <560406C2.6090200@ti.com> <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> <560565AF.2010701@oracle.com> <56056FD9.5060000@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <56056FD9.5060000-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Nishanth Menon , santosh shilimkar , Santosh Shilimkar Cc: devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09/25/2015 12:01 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09/25/2015 10:18 AM, santosh shilimkar wrote: >> On 9/25/2015 7:50 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > [...] >>> But, how about userspace >>> needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on >>> board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that? Believe it or not, user space tools that are custom to a specific SoC would require such knowledge. So I agree on this front that a SoC specific compatibility is cool to have. I think that should have been clear in the commit description. My Acked-By: Murali Karicheri >>> >> Why the user space should care about exact SOC ? > > examples vary - trivial one is: debug tools like omapconf[1] or testing > tools like opentest[2] need some standard way to ensure Linux kernel is > functional - trusting the least set of parameters is usually what we > would prefer. while building a generic distro such as debian or yocto, > one prefers NOT to need to do a package build per SoC/perboard - that > never scales. instead, you'd like the same application run on different > systems dynamically. > > > [1] https://github.com/omapconf/omapconf > [2] http://arago-project.org/wiki/index.php/Opentest > -- Murali Karicheri Linux Kernel, Keystone -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752576AbbI3Ob5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:31:57 -0400 Received: from arroyo.ext.ti.com ([192.94.94.40]:42451 "EHLO arroyo.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750749AbbI3Oby (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:31:54 -0400 Message-ID: <560BF254.2040509@ti.com> Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:31:48 -0400 From: Murali Karicheri Organization: Texas Instruments User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Nishanth Menon , santosh shilimkar , Santosh Shilimkar CC: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] Documentation: dt: keystone: provide SoC specific compatible flags References: <1442938118-4718-1-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <1442938118-4718-2-git-send-email-nm@ti.com> <5602ED34.9010108@oracle.com> <56040323.1080409@ti.com> <560406C2.6090200@ti.com> <56041CA4.40208@ti.com> <56055F1F.4060401@ti.com> <560565AF.2010701@oracle.com> <56056FD9.5060000@ti.com> In-Reply-To: <56056FD9.5060000@ti.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09/25/2015 12:01 PM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 09/25/2015 10:18 AM, santosh shilimkar wrote: >> On 9/25/2015 7:50 AM, Nishanth Menon wrote: > [...] >>> But, how about userspace >>> needing to know which SoC they are on, without needing to depend on >>> board->soc mapping? How do we help resolve that? Believe it or not, user space tools that are custom to a specific SoC would require such knowledge. So I agree on this front that a SoC specific compatibility is cool to have. I think that should have been clear in the commit description. My Acked-By: Murali Karicheri >>> >> Why the user space should care about exact SOC ? > > examples vary - trivial one is: debug tools like omapconf[1] or testing > tools like opentest[2] need some standard way to ensure Linux kernel is > functional - trusting the least set of parameters is usually what we > would prefer. while building a generic distro such as debian or yocto, > one prefers NOT to need to do a package build per SoC/perboard - that > never scales. instead, you'd like the same application run on different > systems dynamically. > > > [1] https://github.com/omapconf/omapconf > [2] http://arago-project.org/wiki/index.php/Opentest > -- Murali Karicheri Linux Kernel, Keystone