Re: [PATCH v7 RESEND 2/3] thermal: exynos_tmu: Support new hardware and update TMU interface

[Youngmin Nam <youngmin.nam@samsung.com>]

On 11/26/25 18:21, Tudor Ambarus wrote:
> Hi, Shin Son,
> 
> On 11/26/25 9:19 AM, 손신 wrote:
>>> Looking at the exynosautov9 registers that you described and comparing
>>> them with
>>> gs101 I see just 2 differences:
>>> 1/ exnosautov2 has a TRIMINFO_CONFIG2 register, while gs101 doesn't 2/
>>> EXYNOSAUTOV920_PEND register fields differ from GS101
>> TRIMINFO_CONFIG2 doesn't exist on eav920 either; I simply misnamed it.
>> However, the PEND register indeed differs from GS101.
>>
>>> Given the similarities, and considering the EXYNOS9_ registers rename from:
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/20251117074140.4090939-5-
>>> youngmin.nam@samsung.com/
>>> would it make sense to use the SoC-era name instead of specific SoC, i.e.
>>> s/EXYNOSAUTOV920_/EXYNOS9_ and use the latter for both exynosautov9 and
>>> gs101?
>>>
>> First of all, as far as I know, EXYNOS9 is not the same as exynosautov9, and exynosautov920 also differs from exynosautov9.
> 
> See also see this patch, or maybe the entire patch set:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-samsung-soc/20251117074140.4090939-2-youngmin.nam@samsung.com/
> 
> It's not just autov9 and gs101 that have similar TMU registers (with the two
> exceptions AFAICT), it's also exynos850 that seems identical with autov9.
> 
> All seem to be part of the same "Exynos9-era" SoCs. Let's think about how
> gs101/exynos850 TMU addition will follow. Shall one use the EXYNOSAUTOV920
> registers? That seems misleading. Shall one redefine the entire register set?
> That won't fly because of the code duplication.
> 
> Thus I propose to use the EXYNOS9 prefix for the register definitions, and if
> there are SoCs with slight differences, that can be handled with compatible
> match data and specific SoC definitions, but only where things differ.
> 
>> So while sharing a common prefix is a good suggestion in general, I believe it's not appropriate here
>> Because the register definitions are not fully compatible across these SoCs. Using a common name array may introduce confusion later.
> 
> Please reconsider this. Maybe Youngmin Nam or others can intervene.
> 
> Thanks!
> ta
> 
Hi Tudor,

First, thank you for referencing my pinctrl patch and asking for my input.
Yes. That's exactly my intent. Use the EXYNOS9 prefix to minimize fragmentation.

Even if some registers aren't fully compatible,
I'd prefer to maximize the common EXYNOS9 definitions and handle SoC-specific differences via match data or small deltas,
rather than introducing SoC-specific register names.

Hi Shin Son,
if possible, please consider this approach as well.

Thanks,
Youngmin