On 8 September 2014 16:33, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.rip...@free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 03:55:19PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 01:37:23PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2014 at 01:01:11PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
>> > > Signed-off-by: Luc Verhaegen <l...@skynet.be>
>> > > ---
>> > > meminfo.c | 4 ++--
>> > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> > >
>> > > diff --git a/meminfo.c b/meminfo.c
>> > > index 86b5c1e..24b4772 100644
>> > > --- a/meminfo.c
>> > > +++ b/meminfo.c
>> > > @@ -60,8 +60,8 @@ enum sunxi_soc_version {
>> > > SUNXI_SOC_SUN6I = 0x1633, /* A31 */
>> > > SUNXI_SOC_SUN7I = 0x1651, /* A20 */
>> > > SUNXI_SOC_SUN8I = 0x1650, /* A23 */
>> > > - SUNXI_SOC_SUN9I = 0x1667, /* A33 */
>> > > - SUNXI_SOC_SUN10I = 0x1635, /* A80 */
>> > > + SUNXI_SOC_SUN9I = 0x1635, /* A80 */
>> > > + SUNXI_SOC_SUN10I = 0x1667, /* A33 */
>> >
>> > A33 is actually part of the sun8i family.
>> >
>> > Maxime
>>
>> For those who do not know what Maxime is on about, here is the short
>> explanation:
>> http://linux-sunxi.org/Allwinner_SoC_Family#Naming_confusion
>>
>> I do not buy the modern allwinner sunXi naming.
>>
>> Retro-actively renaming half their line-up sun4i and the other half
>> sun8i, I have seen that before (cfr unichrome.sf.net). A few months in,
>> and that Vendor did another little pirouette. And again, and again.
>>
>> Where Allwinner drew the naming line now is quite arbitrary: the type of
>> the ARM core in there. The one component which is mostly generic and
>> reasonably universal. Sun4i suddenly became all ARM Cortex A8, sun8i
>> became all ARM Cortex A7. Now that they stuck a few A15 in A80, they
>> named that sun9i.
>
> Actually, I do find it consistent.
>
>> If the sunXiwYpZ scheme actually had something to do with the majority
>> of SoC specific component lineage, i would've totally bought into it:
>> that would put A20 close to A10, and would put A31 somewhere else
>> altogether, with A23 and A33 close together...
>
> Yeah, right, as if the sun4i/sun5i was in any way better....
>
>> So no, this is purely a marketing driven decision, which will have
>> changed again in 6 months time. Where will Allwinners freshly announced
>> A83 land? Will they stick to their own naming scheme? What will happen
>> when Allwinner produces an ARMv8 chip, will they count beyond 9, or will
>> they rename everything sun7i/sun8i?
>>
>> Sun[4567]i was chronological, and initially sun[89]i were too. So I say
>> we just keep on counting for ourselves.
>
> A10s was released after A13, A31 and A20 at the same time. Not very
> chronological if you ask me...
>
> But I guess what it all boils down is this: do we want to keep
> allwinner's naming and be consistent with it or not. We've been so
> far, it's something I'd like to be kept. Especially since it's *very*
> easy to support (basically, keep the sun6i and sun7i, introduce sun8i
> for A23, A33, and whatever comes next, which should be the best if
> following your "connection" argument), and have sun9i for the A80.
>
> Introducing this sun10i out of nowhere, without any other
> code/documentation referring to it, and with the only argument that
> "some guy thought it was a better idea" is not that great. Especially
> when the time where they will have a new design and come up with
> sun10i chips.
>
>> Another option is to completely switch to AW<chip id>, which would mimic
>> what i did for unichrome.
>>
>> A10 = AW1623 (sun4i)
>> A13/A10s = AW1625 (sun5i)
>> A31 = AW1633 (sun6i)
>> A20 = AW1651 (sun7i)
>> A23 = AW1650 (sun8i)
>> A80 = AW1635 (sun9i)
>> A33 = AW1667 (...)
>>
>> Now that's going to be real confusing.
>
> That could be an option, but like you said, it's pretty confusing to
> existing user of our code base.
Ok, so how about printing all of the above?
The chip id is something burnt into the SoC and cannot be disputed.
>From the chip id it can be guessed what is probably printed on the
package unless AW marketing got *really* creative. Now there is
codename under which the chip was historically released. That it was
retroactively renamed by AW is something that existing devices cannot
reflect.
Incidentally there is no clash:
>> A10 = AW1623 (sun4i)
>> A13/A10s = AW1625 (sun5i)
>> A31 = AW1633 (sun6i)
>> A20 = AW1651 (sun7i)
>> A23 = AW1650 (sun8i or sun8iw3)
>> A80 = AW1635 (sun9i or sun9iw1)
>> A33 = AW1667 (sun8iw5)
Once A83 comes out or there is enough support for a23 and a33 it may
turn out that keeing a codename for new SoCs is just too insane and
they can be dropped.
Thanks
Michal
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
