Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-binding: ARM: samsung: Add Samsung Exynos8855

Hi Alim / Ivaylo / Krysztof

On Mon, 6 Jul 2026 at 17:05, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 06/07/2026 05:44, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> > Hi Ivaylo,
> > Thanks for your review.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ivaylo Ivanov <[email protected]>
> >> Sent: Monday, July 6, 2026 4:11 AM
> >> To: Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]
> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]; [email protected];
> >> [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/6] dt-binding: ARM: samsung: Add Samsung
> >> Exynos8855
> >>
> >> On 6/27/26 20:12, Alim Akhtar wrote:
> >>> Add Samsung Exynos8855 smdk board to documentation
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml     | 6 ++++++
> >>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git
> >>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml
> >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml
> >>> index 753b3ba1b607..273464400477 100644
> >>> ---
> >>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-boards.yaml
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/samsung/samsung-
> >> boards.yam
> >>> +++ l
> >>> @@ -235,6 +235,12 @@ properties:
> >>>                - winlink,e850-96                 # WinLink E850-96
> >>>            - const: samsung,exynos850
> >>>
> >>> +      - description: Exynos8855 based boards
> >>> +        items:
> >>> +          - enum:
> >>> +              - samsung,exynos8855-smdk         # Samsung SMDK
> >>> +          - const: samsung,exynos8855
> >>
> >> Is there any particular reason for using "exynos8855" rather than the
> >> commercial name - exynos1580? We've already established using the latter
> >> naming scheme as a convention (e.g. exynos3830 -> exynos850, exynos9830 ->
> >> exynos990) rather than the development model numbers, so I don't think
> >> breaking that will help anyone with the already painful model number confusion.
> >>
> > The reason for using Exynos8855 is that it comes from the chip-id register, which is RO register.
> > And in my opinion it has to be chip-id, maintaining two names is confusing (as you also mentioned).
> > Yes, there were couple of deviation but let's come back to the "original" convention (which is to use chip-id).
> >
> > @ Krzysztof, Peter
> > Any input on this?
>
> Back in Exynos850 upstreaming, my preference was the chipid value, but I
> agreed for marketing name. Marketing names are tricky, because:
> 1. They change,
> 2. They might multiply (two or three marketing names for the same die -
> common case in Qualcomm),
>
> That's why for Samsung SoCs, I rather prefer chipid value. For
> Google/Axis/Tesla the case is different and we should use their naming -
> some engineering name for example.

Using the chip ID value for Samsung Exynos SoCs and an engineering
name for ASICs sounds like a good approach to me.

For gs101 I also tried to document the various names in
https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/google.yaml.

Peter