| Message ID | 20180821170945.18898-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add Rock960 board support | expand |
Hi Manivannan, On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. > What are the differences between this consumer edition board, and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? Perhaps the devicetree and the board support can be shared with ficus support? I submitted v2 moments ago: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/963241/ https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/963242/ Regards, Ezequiel
Hi Ezequiel, On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > Hi Manivannan, > > On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, > > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based > > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. > > > > What are the differences between this consumer edition board, > and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. > Perhaps the devicetree and the board support can be > shared with ficus support? > I'm fine with it but you seem to have added Ficus board under evb_rk3399 which I think not the good place. Since the board manufacturer is different, I would suggest you to place it under boards/vamrs as I have done here. Also with more boards coming from Vamrs, this makes much more sense. Please let me know your thoughts! Thanks, Mani > I submitted v2 moments ago: > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/963241/ > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/963242/ > > Regards, > Ezequiel > > > -- > Ezequiel García, VanguardiaSur > www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
On 30 August 2018 at 00:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Ezequiel, > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >> Hi Manivannan, >> >> On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: >> > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, >> > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based >> > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. >> > >> >> What are the differences between this consumer edition board, >> and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? >> > > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. > In that case, you should try to leverage the Linux ficus.dts: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-ficus.dts If no differences, using the ficus dts should do. If there are differences, we can create a common rock960.dtsi and then enterprise and consumer edition dts. >> Perhaps the devicetree and the board support can be >> shared with ficus support? >> > > I'm fine with it but you seem to have added Ficus board under > evb_rk3399 which I think not the good place. Since the board > manufacturer is different, I would suggest you to place it under > boards/vamrs as I have done here. Also with more boards coming from > Vamrs, this makes much more sense. > > Please let me know your thoughts! > Well, I've reused the evb support, because there was no reason to have board-specific code. If we have now a reason, then of course having a board dir makes sense. When possible, we should try to avoid code duplication and scattering. For instance, the instructions in the README look RK3399 generic and not board specific. We should consolidate that.
On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On 30 August 2018 at 00:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Ezequiel, > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> Hi Manivannan, > >> > >> On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam > >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, > >> > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based > >> > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. > >> > > >> > >> What are the differences between this consumer edition board, > >> and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? > >> > > > > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. > > > > In that case, you should try to leverage the Linux ficus.dts: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-ficus.dts > > If no differences, using the ficus dts should do. If there are differences, > we can create a common rock960.dtsi and then enterprise and consumer > edition dts. > Okay. Here are the differences between Ficus and Rock960 CE: 1. Different host enable GPIO for USB (vcc5v0_host) 2. Different power and reset for PCI-E (vcc3v3_pcie, pcie0) 3. No Ethernet port on Rock960 (gmac) So, I would suggest keeping USB, PCI-E and GMAC related nodes on the board specific devicetree and rest on the rk3399-rock960.dtsi. What do you think? Same applies to Linux also! Thanks, Mani > >> Perhaps the devicetree and the board support can be > >> shared with ficus support? > >> > > > > I'm fine with it but you seem to have added Ficus board under > > evb_rk3399 which I think not the good place. Since the board > > manufacturer is different, I would suggest you to place it under > > boards/vamrs as I have done here. Also with more boards coming from > > Vamrs, this makes much more sense. > > > > Please let me know your thoughts! > > > > Well, I've reused the evb support, because there was no reason > to have board-specific code. If we have now a reason, then of course > having a board dir makes sense. > > When possible, we should try to avoid code duplication and scattering. > For instance, the instructions in the README look RK3399 generic > and not board specific. We should consolidate that. > -- > Ezequiel García, VanguardiaSur > www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > On 30 August 2018 at 00:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam > > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > > Hi Ezequiel, > > > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > >> Hi Manivannan, > > >> > > >> On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam > > >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > >> > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, > > >> > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based > > >> > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. > > >> > > > >> > > >> What are the differences between this consumer edition board, > > >> and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? > > >> > > > > > > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. > > > > > > > In that case, you should try to leverage the Linux ficus.dts: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-ficus.dts > > > > If no differences, using the ficus dts should do. If there are differences, > > we can create a common rock960.dtsi and then enterprise and consumer > > edition dts. > > > > Okay. Here are the differences between Ficus and Rock960 CE: > > 1. Different host enable GPIO for USB (vcc5v0_host) > 2. Different power and reset for PCI-E (vcc3v3_pcie, pcie0) > 3. No Ethernet port on Rock960 (gmac) > > So, I would suggest keeping USB, PCI-E and GMAC related nodes on the board > specific devicetree and rest on the rk3399-rock960.dtsi. What do you think? > > Same applies to Linux also! Yes, I think a rk3399-rock960.dtsi with the differences in two .dts would be great, and even better a single U-Boot which can detect the board and load the right DT, but I do think it should be a separate config to evb as Mani mentioned. Peter
On 31 August 2018 at 07:56, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >> > On 30 August 2018 at 00:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam >> > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: >> > > Hi Ezequiel, >> > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >> > >> Hi Manivannan, >> > >> >> > >> On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam >> > >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: >> > >> > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, >> > >> > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based >> > >> > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> What are the differences between this consumer edition board, >> > >> and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? >> > >> >> > > >> > > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. >> > > >> > >> > In that case, you should try to leverage the Linux ficus.dts: >> > >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-ficus.dts >> > >> > If no differences, using the ficus dts should do. If there are differences, >> > we can create a common rock960.dtsi and then enterprise and consumer >> > edition dts. >> > >> >> Okay. Here are the differences between Ficus and Rock960 CE: >> >> 1. Different host enable GPIO for USB (vcc5v0_host) >> 2. Different power and reset for PCI-E (vcc3v3_pcie, pcie0) >> 3. No Ethernet port on Rock960 (gmac) >> >> So, I would suggest keeping USB, PCI-E and GMAC related nodes on the board >> specific devicetree and rest on the rk3399-rock960.dtsi. What do you think? >> >> Same applies to Linux also! > Sounds good. If you have some cycles to work on the dts/dtsi split, that would be great. > Yes, I think a rk3399-rock960.dtsi with the differences in two .dts > would be great, and even better a single U-Boot which can detect the > board and load the right DT, but I do think it should be a separate > config to evb as Mani mentioned. > Sounds good too. That'd make board-specific hooks easier. On the other side, the documentation should be merged somewhere. Seems nonsense to have a README per board, with more or less the same instructions each time. Thanks!
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 09:08:08AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On 31 August 2018 at 07:56, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> > On 30 August 2018 at 00:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam > >> > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > > Hi Ezequiel, > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> > >> Hi Manivannan, > >> > >> > >> > >> On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam > >> > >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, > >> > >> > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based > >> > >> > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> What are the differences between this consumer edition board, > >> > >> and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. > >> > > > >> > > >> > In that case, you should try to leverage the Linux ficus.dts: > >> > > >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-ficus.dts > >> > > >> > If no differences, using the ficus dts should do. If there are differences, > >> > we can create a common rock960.dtsi and then enterprise and consumer > >> > edition dts. > >> > > >> > >> Okay. Here are the differences between Ficus and Rock960 CE: > >> > >> 1. Different host enable GPIO for USB (vcc5v0_host) > >> 2. Different power and reset for PCI-E (vcc3v3_pcie, pcie0) > >> 3. No Ethernet port on Rock960 (gmac) > >> > >> So, I would suggest keeping USB, PCI-E and GMAC related nodes on the board > >> specific devicetree and rest on the rk3399-rock960.dtsi. What do you think? > >> > >> Same applies to Linux also! > > > > Sounds good. If you have some cycles to work on the dts/dtsi split, > that would be great. > Sure, will do it for Linux now. Once your u-boot patches gets in, will tackle it also. > > Yes, I think a rk3399-rock960.dtsi with the differences in two .dts > > would be great, and even better a single U-Boot which can detect the > > board and load the right DT, but I do think it should be a separate > > config to evb as Mani mentioned. > > Thanks Peter for your thoughts! > > Sounds good too. That'd make board-specific hooks easier. > > On the other side, the documentation should be > merged somewhere. > > Seems nonsense to have a README per board, > with more or less the same instructions each time. > This has other side as well. If we continue to merge board specific instructions onto evb-rk3399, it will become messy. So, IMO it's better to have it separate. If you have other ideas, please let me know. Thanks, Mani > Thanks! > -- > Ezequiel García, VanguardiaSur > www.vanguardiasur.com.ar
On 31 August 2018 at 09:24, Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 09:08:08AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >> On 31 August 2018 at 07:56, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >> >> > On 30 August 2018 at 00:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam >> >> > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> > > Hi Ezequiel, >> >> > > >> >> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: >> >> > >> Hi Manivannan, >> >> > >> >> >> > >> On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam >> >> > >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> > >> > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, >> >> > >> > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based >> >> > >> > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> What are the differences between this consumer edition board, >> >> > >> and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > In that case, you should try to leverage the Linux ficus.dts: >> >> > >> >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-ficus.dts >> >> > >> >> > If no differences, using the ficus dts should do. If there are differences, >> >> > we can create a common rock960.dtsi and then enterprise and consumer >> >> > edition dts. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Okay. Here are the differences between Ficus and Rock960 CE: >> >> >> >> 1. Different host enable GPIO for USB (vcc5v0_host) >> >> 2. Different power and reset for PCI-E (vcc3v3_pcie, pcie0) >> >> 3. No Ethernet port on Rock960 (gmac) >> >> >> >> So, I would suggest keeping USB, PCI-E and GMAC related nodes on the board >> >> specific devicetree and rest on the rk3399-rock960.dtsi. What do you think? >> >> >> >> Same applies to Linux also! >> > >> >> Sounds good. If you have some cycles to work on the dts/dtsi split, >> that would be great. >> > > Sure, will do it for Linux now. Once your u-boot patches gets in, > will tackle it also. > Well, I think we can tackle u-boot from scratch. No need to merge my patches if we think they are already wrong :-) >> > Yes, I think a rk3399-rock960.dtsi with the differences in two .dts >> > would be great, and even better a single U-Boot which can detect the >> > board and load the right DT, but I do think it should be a separate >> > config to evb as Mani mentioned. >> > > > Thanks Peter for your thoughts! > >> >> Sounds good too. That'd make board-specific hooks easier. >> >> On the other side, the documentation should be >> merged somewhere. >> >> Seems nonsense to have a README per board, >> with more or less the same instructions each time. >> > > This has other side as well. If we continue to merge board specific > instructions onto evb-rk3399, it will become messy. So, IMO it's better > to have it separate. If you have other ideas, please let me know. > Bootloader wise, there is no such thing as board specific instructions, is it?
On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 09:27:25AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > On 31 August 2018 at 09:24, Manivannan Sadhasivam > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 09:08:08AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> On 31 August 2018 at 07:56, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 12:44:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> >> > On 30 August 2018 at 00:00, Manivannan Sadhasivam > >> >> > <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > >> >> > > Hi Ezequiel, > >> >> > > > >> >> > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 03:11:17AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > >> >> > >> Hi Manivannan, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> On 21 August 2018 at 14:09, Manivannan Sadhasivam > >> >> > >> <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> > This patchset adds board support for Vamrs Limited Rock960, > >> >> > >> > which is one of the 96Boards Consumer Edition platform based > >> >> > >> > on Rockchip RK3399 SoC. > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> What are the differences between this consumer edition board, > >> >> > >> and the enterprise edition (aka Ficus) Vamrs board? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I asked Vamrs about this and they said the difference is very minimal. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > In that case, you should try to leverage the Linux ficus.dts: > >> >> > > >> >> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399-ficus.dts > >> >> > > >> >> > If no differences, using the ficus dts should do. If there are differences, > >> >> > we can create a common rock960.dtsi and then enterprise and consumer > >> >> > edition dts. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Okay. Here are the differences between Ficus and Rock960 CE: > >> >> > >> >> 1. Different host enable GPIO for USB (vcc5v0_host) > >> >> 2. Different power and reset for PCI-E (vcc3v3_pcie, pcie0) > >> >> 3. No Ethernet port on Rock960 (gmac) > >> >> > >> >> So, I would suggest keeping USB, PCI-E and GMAC related nodes on the board > >> >> specific devicetree and rest on the rk3399-rock960.dtsi. What do you think? > >> >> > >> >> Same applies to Linux also! > >> > > >> > >> Sounds good. If you have some cycles to work on the dts/dtsi split, > >> that would be great. > >> > > > > Sure, will do it for Linux now. Once your u-boot patches gets in, > > will tackle it also. > > > > Well, I think we can tackle u-boot from scratch. No need to > merge my patches if we think they are already wrong :-) > Makes sense! > >> > Yes, I think a rk3399-rock960.dtsi with the differences in two .dts > >> > would be great, and even better a single U-Boot which can detect the > >> > board and load the right DT, but I do think it should be a separate > >> > config to evb as Mani mentioned. > >> > > > > > Thanks Peter for your thoughts! > > > >> > >> Sounds good too. That'd make board-specific hooks easier. > >> > >> On the other side, the documentation should be > >> merged somewhere. > >> > >> Seems nonsense to have a README per board, > >> with more or less the same instructions each time. > >> > > > > This has other side as well. If we continue to merge board specific > > instructions onto evb-rk3399, it will become messy. So, IMO it's better > > to have it separate. If you have other ideas, please let me know. > > > > Bootloader wise, there is no such thing as board specific instructions, is it? Yeah, but I'm thinking about the overhead of having a common doc for boards which might come in future (like Rock960c have an optional eMMC module). Even in Rock960 CE, we need to specify the load address for u-boot while preparing the uboot.img (not sure why it is required)... I'm kind of skeptical here. Peter, any thoughts? > -- > Ezequiel García, VanguardiaSur > www.vanguardiasur.com.ar