From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform support Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 14:00:36 +0200 Message-ID: <10792443.jxCOopyCy4@wuerfel> References: <1473859677-9231-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <7524458.uFhxDUCqEo@wuerfel> <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Griffin Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, patrice.chotard@st.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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