From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:00:36 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform
 support
In-Reply-To: <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd>
References: <1473859677-9231-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org>
 <7524458.uFhxDUCqEo@wuerfel>
 <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd>
Message-ID: <10792443.jxCOopyCy4@wuerfel>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:01:39 AM CEST Peter Griffin wrote:
> 
> STiH415 I'm sure never shipped. I'm reasonably sure STiH416 didn't
> either. These SoCs were considered legacy even when I was at ST
> ~3 years ago.
> 
> Also remember these are STB SoC's, so JTAG fuses are blown in
> production boxes, and also full security is enabled. This means the
> primary bootloader will only boot a signed kernel. So if a end user
> did happen to have a box they would be unable to upgrade their kernel.
> 
> From the landing team perspective they were interesting in that they
> shared many IPs with the STiH407 family on which future chipsets were
> based, and were available to us when that silicon was harder to get
> hold of. So we used it as a vehicle for upstreaming so that upstream
> support was already quite good when STiH407 silicon did land on our
> desk.

Ok, makes sense. I did stumble over one machine basedon STiH412
the other day [1], but there probably isn't much shared with that
one. Since this a NAS server rather than an STB box, it's probably
less locked-down and potentially a target for OpenWRT or similar.

	Arnd

[1] http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/synology-diskstation-ds216play-16tb-a1400885.html