From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB254299A8C; Thu, 13 Nov 2025 17:43:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763055831; cv=none; b=ZzcXthm0ZLKE6T2cK+gVCcja69yj54V0fBv5VUVmfUs89ouu/9NAiOy6rP1xbFaZY7TY0UZXJK21NXBuS2lVUyGRG3mZPox0elc0aKB+SJBQarj0H4cZZiTlyJ0qY53V5TptPtAqowXIbtAwqPo7WoOiibFpUshqPT0VCe4C/zM= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763055831; c=relaxed/simple; bh=69BuV/Su/GcdTdHrL9gxzXflM0lUoZrqMWAuVIVx3LI=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=kaJy7InErGYgenYM2JgeoUg0QTIfEIQILks320lhTthl1tQMPy4WqP0WgHEDW3T939Ihc17XRDN4efOIWHZFn4Do3+94PV94NCVxvrRcTCTILNtJodAxdffh8Teo4laPcqCmveicw3Tr6UYWZMC7BWqjQy7/4orQ6YyQCr686CU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=IQSZ7KQL; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="IQSZ7KQL" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 161A7C4CEF1; Thu, 13 Nov 2025 17:43:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1763055831; bh=69BuV/Su/GcdTdHrL9gxzXflM0lUoZrqMWAuVIVx3LI=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=IQSZ7KQL8z4Xo5cLzDS6HUFsnfylgBFqj2rZ9hMycJTVn2ORjF2CZzMeIYuusU6cJ 840R2aJpRQcXc6846WmZfniEFvtkQ8Ab4URBqV4nZ0nSkhJ3IKV9wNOZuaGhFy2YIn RVYviPivmL68wdkKEH89xGYTjrod6GbR5oZtqOIgRQ9KWtNV7Ja7gN/gNqYuS/vv9p 3wYl2GY5nWVK7K7h9Vu9Zpvmd1sRm6zyn53JyNE6KAiWENI66IS2GQ8Nfhh2WJsczJ 7hiKpGZvgMOZFulTtWGf2f9mg0GFh6QJKJXADVZBx+f3ONfrhbsP0JC/pDxqgpO57P rpEX9ut2Zv/DA== Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 18:43:46 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] dt-bindings: arm: google: Add bindings for frankel/blazer/mustang To: Doug Anderson Cc: Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Peter Griffin , =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Draszik?= , Tudor Ambarus , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Roy Luo , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Chen-Yu Tsai , Julius Werner , William McVicker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20251111192422.4180216-1-dianders@chromium.org> <20251111112158.1.I72a0b72562b85d02fee424fed939fea9049ddda9@changeid> <05c833f0-15bc-4a86-9ac4-daf835fe4393@kernel.org> <00ea821c-5252-42cb-8f6f-da01453947bd@kernel.org> <6490f20a-2492-4ee0-8f34-d529e0df0bad@kernel.org> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski Content-Language: en-US Autocrypt: addr=krzk@kernel.org; keydata= xsFNBFVDQq4BEAC6KeLOfFsAvFMBsrCrJ2bCalhPv5+KQF2PS2+iwZI8BpRZoV+Bd5kWvN79 cFgcqTTuNHjAvxtUG8pQgGTHAObYs6xeYJtjUH0ZX6ndJ33FJYf5V3yXqqjcZ30FgHzJCFUu JMp7PSyMPzpUXfU12yfcRYVEMQrmplNZssmYhiTeVicuOOypWugZKVLGNm0IweVCaZ/DJDIH gNbpvVwjcKYrx85m9cBVEBUGaQP6AT7qlVCkrf50v8bofSIyVa2xmubbAwwFA1oxoOusjPIE J3iadrwpFvsZjF5uHAKS+7wHLoW9hVzOnLbX6ajk5Hf8Pb1m+VH/E8bPBNNYKkfTtypTDUCj NYcd27tjnXfG+SDs/EXNUAIRefCyvaRG7oRYF3Ec+2RgQDRnmmjCjoQNbFrJvJkFHlPeHaeS BosGY+XWKydnmsfY7SSnjAzLUGAFhLd/XDVpb1Een2XucPpKvt9ORF+48gy12FA5GduRLhQU vK4tU7ojoem/G23PcowM1CwPurC8sAVsQb9KmwTGh7rVz3ks3w/zfGBy3+WmLg++C2Wct6nM Pd8/6CBVjEWqD06/RjI2AnjIq5fSEH/BIfXXfC68nMp9BZoy3So4ZsbOlBmtAPvMYX6U8VwD TNeBxJu5Ex0Izf1NV9CzC3nNaFUYOY8KfN01X5SExAoVTr09ewARAQABzSVLcnp5c3p0b2Yg S296bG93c2tpIDxrcnprQGtlcm5lbC5vcmc+wsGVBBMBCgA/AhsDBgsJCAcDAgYVCAIJCgsE FgIDAQIeAQIXgBYhBJvQfg4MUfjVlne3VBuTQ307QWKbBQJoF1BKBQkWlnSaAAoJEBuTQ307 QWKbHukP/3t4tRp/bvDnxJfmNdNVn0gv9ep3L39IntPalBFwRKytqeQkzAju0whYWg+R/rwp +r2I1Fzwt7+PTjsnMFlh1AZxGDmP5MFkzVsMnfX1lGiXhYSOMP97XL6R1QSXxaWOpGNCDaUl ajorB0lJDcC0q3xAdwzRConxYVhlgmTrRiD8oLlSCD5baEAt5Zw17UTNDnDGmZQKR0fqLpWy 786Lm5OScb7DjEgcA2PRm17st4UQ1kF0rQHokVaotxRM74PPDB8bCsunlghJl1DRK9s1aSuN hL1Pv9VD8b4dFNvCo7b4hfAANPU67W40AaaGZ3UAfmw+1MYyo4QuAZGKzaP2ukbdCD/DYnqi tJy88XqWtyb4UQWKNoQqGKzlYXdKsldYqrLHGoMvj1UN9XcRtXHST/IaLn72o7j7/h/Ac5EL 8lSUVIG4TYn59NyxxAXa07Wi6zjVL1U11fTnFmE29ALYQEXKBI3KUO1A3p4sQWzU7uRmbuxn naUmm8RbpMcOfa9JjlXCLmQ5IP7Rr5tYZUCkZz08LIfF8UMXwH7OOEX87Y++EkAB+pzKZNNd hwoXulTAgjSy+OiaLtuCys9VdXLZ3Zy314azaCU3BoWgaMV0eAW/+gprWMXQM1lrlzvwlD/k whyy9wGf0AEPpLssLVt9VVxNjo6BIkt6d1pMg6mHsUEVzsFNBFVDXDQBEADNkrQYSREUL4D3 Gws46JEoZ9HEQOKtkrwjrzlw/tCmqVzERRPvz2Xg8n7+HRCrgqnodIYoUh5WsU84N03KlLue MNsWLJBvBaubYN4JuJIdRr4dS4oyF1/fQAQPHh8Thpiz0SAZFx6iWKB7Qrz3OrGCjTPcW6ei OMheesVS5hxietSmlin+SilmIAPZHx7n242u6kdHOh+/SyLImKn/dh9RzatVpUKbv34eP1wA GldWsRxbf3WP9pFNObSzI/Bo3kA89Xx2rO2roC+Gq4LeHvo7ptzcLcrqaHUAcZ3CgFG88CnA 6z6lBZn0WyewEcPOPdcUB2Q7D/NiUY+HDiV99rAYPJztjeTrBSTnHeSBPb+qn5ZZGQwIdUW9 YegxWKvXXHTwB5eMzo/RB6vffwqcnHDoe0q7VgzRRZJwpi6aMIXLfeWZ5Wrwaw2zldFuO4Dt 91pFzBSOIpeMtfgb/Pfe/a1WJ/GgaIRIBE+NUqckM+3zJHGmVPqJP/h2Iwv6nw8U+7Yyl6gU BLHFTg2hYnLFJI4Xjg+AX1hHFVKmvl3VBHIsBv0oDcsQWXqY+NaFahT0lRPjYtrTa1v3tem/ JoFzZ4B0p27K+qQCF2R96hVvuEyjzBmdq2esyE6zIqftdo4MOJho8uctOiWbwNNq2U9pPWmu 4vXVFBYIGmpyNPYzRm0QPwARAQABwsF8BBgBCgAmAhsMFiEEm9B+DgxR+NWWd7dUG5NDfTtB YpsFAmgXUF8FCRaWWyoACgkQG5NDfTtBYptO0w//dlXJs5/42hAXKsk+PDg3wyEFb4NpyA1v qmx7SfAzk9Hf6lWwU1O6AbqNMbh6PjEwadKUk1m04S7EjdQLsj/MBSgoQtCT3MDmWUUtHZd5 RYIPnPq3WVB47GtuO6/u375tsxhtf7vt95QSYJwCB+ZUgo4T+FV4hquZ4AsRkbgavtIzQisg Dgv76tnEv3YHV8Jn9mi/Bu0FURF+5kpdMfgo1sq6RXNQ//TVf8yFgRtTUdXxW/qHjlYURrm2 H4kutobVEIxiyu6m05q3e9eZB/TaMMNVORx+1kM3j7f0rwtEYUFzY1ygQfpcMDPl7pRYoJjB dSsm0ZuzDaCwaxg2t8hqQJBzJCezTOIkjHUsWAK+tEbU4Z4SnNpCyM3fBqsgYdJxjyC/tWVT AQ18NRLtPw7tK1rdcwCl0GFQHwSwk5pDpz1NH40e6lU+NcXSeiqkDDRkHlftKPV/dV+lQXiu jWt87ecuHlpL3uuQ0ZZNWqHgZoQLXoqC2ZV5KrtKWb/jyiFX/sxSrodALf0zf+tfHv0FZWT2 zHjUqd0t4njD/UOsuIMOQn4Ig0SdivYPfZukb5cdasKJukG1NOpbW7yRNivaCnfZz6dTawXw XRIV/KDsHQiyVxKvN73bThKhONkcX2LWuD928tAR6XMM2G5ovxLe09vuOzzfTWQDsm++9UKF a/A= In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 13/11/2025 18:16, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 8:34 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> >> On 13/11/2025 17:23, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:23 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> + # Google Tensor G5 AKA lga (laguna) SoC and boards >>>>>>> + - description: Tensor G5 SoC (laguna) >>>>>>> + items: >>>>>>> + - enum: >>>>>>> + - google,soc-id-0005-rev-00 # A0 >>>>>>> + - google,soc-id-0005-rev-10 # B0 >>>>>> >>>>>> SoCs cannot be final compatibles. >>>>> >>>>> Right. I talked about this at length "after the cut" in my patch. See >>>>> above. I wish to relitigate this policy and wish to know more details >>>>> about where it is documented, the reasons for decision, and where the >>>>> boundary exactly lies between something that's allowed to be a final >>>>> compatible and something that's not. I made several arguments above >>>>> for why I think the SoC should be allowed as a final compatible, so it >>>> >>>> Because this represents a actual device users run. It is electronically, >>>> physically impossible to run the SoC alone. >>> >>> I'm not convinced that this definition is as clear as you're making it >>> out to be. It's physically impossible to run many "boards" alone. >>> >>> Want to boot up a Raspberry Pi? Provide it with power. Hook up a >>> display to it. Hook up a keyboard to it. Plug in an Ethernet cable. >>> Plug an SD card in it. Without those things it doesn't run. >> >> But I can plug them... > > I can plug my lga SoC into my dev board too. My dev board literally So this will be dev board... If you plug this into dev board, then I claim that your compatible must be specific for this system thus describe that product, which is SoC and devboard, not SoC alone. > has a place for me to drop in the SoC. I unscrew the socket connector, > carefully make sure that none of the balls of the SoC have dust > particles on them (and we have instructions for cleaning the SoC), > then drop the SoC into the socket (ideally using a vacuum pen tool). I > then screw the top back together which uses compression to attach the > balls on the SoC. > > Yes, this is only true on dev boards and not phones, but we want to be > able to support dev boards too and it would be silly to have a > different split between DTB and overlays for dev boards and phones > that are based on the same architecture You still have dev board thus need dev board compatible. > > >>> Want to boot up a lga-B0 SoC? Hook up power to the power pins. Connect >>> a MIPI panel to the MIPI pins. Connect a UFS chip to the UFS pins. >>> Without those things it doesn't run. >> >> These I cannot plug, it's impossible for me. >> >> My clumsy fingers are too big for these pins. > > As per above, sockets do exist. They are pluggable. I have confidence > that even with clumsy fingers you could drop the SoC into the slot and > screw the connector down. > > I'm still not totally convinced that it should require the existence > of a socket to justify this but, yes, they do exist. > > >> And following your logic, we should have the compatible for the >> transistors, because that's basically what SoC is made of. > > My logic (stated later in my email) is that the minimum requirement > for a compatible should be something with a CPU able to execute > instructions. A single transistor can't do that. If you want to > combine a bunch of transistors together to make a CPU then absolutely > you should be able to have a DTB representing this CPU. Linux cannot execute instructions on this SoC alone. You need dev board. My clumsy fingers were just example, but you simply cannot run any software on this SoC without something else. Virtual models and virtual platforms could be run without that "something else" and they are allowed to have just the compatible. See all the FVPs and QEMU platforms. > >>> Yes, the complexity of just "hooking up" the components on an SoC is >>> an order of magnitude harder than a Raspberry Pi, but it's still just >>> hooking it up to external components. In both cases, we are modeling >>> the core "brains" (the part that contains the processor) as the DTB >>> and everything else just "hooks up" to interfaces. >> >> You mix the topics, so I don't follow. I speak here about bindings - you >> cannot have the that compatible alone, because it is incomplete, just >> like compatible for "transistor" is not correct in that context. You >> speak what could or could be DTB, different topic. > > A "SoC" is "complete". It has a processor that can run instructions. Then show me executing any piece of software, which is the consumer of the bindings, and runs on the SoC without the rest of the hardware system. > > >>> If I had to make a definition for what the base DTB should be it >>> should be the component with the boot CPU. _Why_ is that the wrong >>> definition? >>> >>> >>>> There are few - one or two - exceptions for the SoMs, but never for SoC. >>> >>> OK, but the big question: _WHY???_ >>> >>> Where does it say that a DTB has to be something that can run "alone" >> >> We don't discuss DTB here, but the top-level compatibles. >> >> Why? Because DT spec says so. >> >> "Specifies a list of platform architectures with which this platform is >> compatible. " >> >> And when you combine it with the standard definition of the >> "compatible", it is not *a* "platform architecture" but *list* of >> platform architectures describing this device as a whole. > > I still don't understand why a SoC doesn't qualify for your > definition. Even if it did, there is _no benefit_ from excluding a SoC > from this definition. I'm trying to figure out what the benefit is for > holding to this stance. We write bindings for users. There is no user of SoC and such compatible alone. There is no such real use case. Your use case is broken bootloader which pretends there is no board, but there is a board, someone just did not want to admit it. We don't develop for such use cases. > > In any case, maybe we can approach this a different way that I alluded > to in one of my other posts. Can we just call the SoC thing something > different and make everyone happy? > > 1. Rename the SoC file to lga-b0.dtf (device tree fragment) and > _REMOVE_ the top-level compatible. Problem solved--we're not adding a > top-level compatible. > > 2. Add a special node at the top level of the "dtf" file describing it > (so someone could figure it's useful for). Like: > > fragment-info { > compatible = "google,soc-id"; > google,product-id = <0x5>; > google,major-rev = <0x1>; > google,minor-rev = <0x0>; > google,package-mode = <0x0>; > }; > > 3. We can compile the "dtf" file using existing tools into a "dtfb". > This looks just like a "dtb" but has no top-level compatible but > instead has "fragment-info". > > Now we're not violating any spec because we're not adding any > top-level compatible. Didn't you just describe an overlay or DTSI file? Best regards, Krzysztof