RE: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Samsung Trinity NPU device driver

Posted by MyungJoo Ham 3 years, 8 months ago

> Hi,
> Why isn't this submitted to soc/ subsystem ?
> Don't you think that would be more appropriate, given that this IP is
> integrated into application processors ?
>
> Thanks,
> Oded

This series (Trinity-V2.3, V2.4, A1, ..) is being integrated to multiple SoCs,
not limited to Samsung-designed chips (e.g., Exynos).
It's a bit weird to have them in /drivers/soc/samsung.

CC: Krzysztof and Alim (Samsung-SoC maintainers)

Cheers,
MyungJoo

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Samsung Trinity NPU device driver

Posted by Krzysztof Kozlowski 3 years, 8 months ago

On 26/07/2022 04:09, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Why isn't this submitted to soc/ subsystem ?
>> Don't you think that would be more appropriate, given that this IP is
>> integrated into application processors ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Oded
> 
> This series (Trinity-V2.3, V2.4, A1, ..) is being integrated to multiple SoCs,
> not limited to Samsung-designed chips (e.g., Exynos).
> It's a bit weird to have them in /drivers/soc/samsung.
> 
> CC: Krzysztof and Alim (Samsung-SoC maintainers)

If it is not related to Samsung SoCs (or other designs by Samsung
Foundry), then it should not go to drivers/soc. Based on cover letter,
it looks this is the case.


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Samsung Trinity NPU device driver

Posted by Arnd Bergmann 3 years, 8 months ago

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 26/07/2022 04:09, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> Why isn't this submitted to soc/ subsystem ?
> >> Don't you think that would be more appropriate, given that this IP is
> >> integrated into application processors ?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Oded
> >
> > This series (Trinity-V2.3, V2.4, A1, ..) is being integrated to multiple SoCs,
> > not limited to Samsung-designed chips (e.g., Exynos).
> > It's a bit weird to have them in /drivers/soc/samsung.
> >
> > CC: Krzysztof and Alim (Samsung-SoC maintainers)
>
> If it is not related to Samsung SoCs (or other designs by Samsung
> Foundry), then it should not go to drivers/soc. Based on cover letter,
> it looks this is the case.

Agreed, and I also don't want to add any drivers with a user interface
to drivers/soc/. The things we have in there mainly fall into two categories:

 - soc_device drivers for identifying the SoC itself from userspace or
   another driver

 - drivers that provide exported symbols to other kernel drivers for things
   that do not have a proper subsystem abstraction (yet).

This driver clearly does not fall into those categories. As long as there
is no subsystem for NPUs, the only sensible options are drivers/gpu
and drivers/misc/.

     Arnd

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Samsung Trinity NPU device driver

Posted by Pavel Machek 3 years, 8 months ago

Hi!

> This driver clearly does not fall into those categories. As long as there
> is no subsystem for NPUs, the only sensible options are drivers/gpu
> and drivers/misc/.

Well, we can create drivers/npu. I'm sure these will get more
widespread.

And GPU people really should be cc-ed.

Best regards,
							Pavel

--

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Samsung Trinity NPU device driver

Posted by Oded Gabbay 3 years, 8 months ago

On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 10:51 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2022 at 8:59 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 26/07/2022 04:09, MyungJoo Ham wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >> Why isn't this submitted to soc/ subsystem ?
> > >> Don't you think that would be more appropriate, given that this IP is
> > >> integrated into application processors ?
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Oded
> > >
> > > This series (Trinity-V2.3, V2.4, A1, ..) is being integrated to multiple SoCs,
> > > not limited to Samsung-designed chips (e.g., Exynos).
> > > It's a bit weird to have them in /drivers/soc/samsung.
> > >
> > > CC: Krzysztof and Alim (Samsung-SoC maintainers)
> >
> > If it is not related to Samsung SoCs (or other designs by Samsung
> > Foundry), then it should not go to drivers/soc. Based on cover letter,
> > it looks this is the case.
>
> Agreed, and I also don't want to add any drivers with a user interface
> to drivers/soc/. The things we have in there mainly fall into two categories:
>
>  - soc_device drivers for identifying the SoC itself from userspace or
>    another driver
>
>  - drivers that provide exported symbols to other kernel drivers for things
>    that do not have a proper subsystem abstraction (yet).
>
> This driver clearly does not fall into those categories. As long as there
> is no subsystem for NPUs, the only sensible options are drivers/gpu
> and drivers/misc/.
>
>      Arnd

Thanks for the explanation, I wasn't sure what the criteria for
getting into drivers/soc is,
but now it is clear.

Oded