- 11 Dec, 2023 2 commits
-
-
Jaewon Kim authored
ExynosAutov920 SADK is ExynosAutov920 SoC based SADK(Samsung Automotive Development Kit) board. It has 16GB(8GB + 8GB) LPDDR5 RAM and 256GB (128GB + 128GB) UFS. This is minimal support board device-tree. * Serial console * GPIO Key * PWM FAN Signed-off-by:
Jaewon Kim <jaewon02.kim@samsung.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231208074527.50840-3-jaewon02.kim@samsung.comSigned-off-by:
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Samsung ExynosAutov920 is ARMv8-based automotive-oriented SoC. It has AE(Automotive Enhanced) IPs for safety. * Cortex-A78AE 10-cores * GIC-600AE This is minimal support for ExynosAutov920 SoC. * Enumerate all pinctrl nodes * Enable Chip-Id * Serial0 for console * PWM Since the clock driver is not yet implemented, it is supported as fixed-clock. Signed-off-by:
-
- 07 Dec, 2023 7 commits
-
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Tesla FSD is a derivative of Samsung Exynos SoC, thus just like the others it reuses several devices from older designs. Historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add Tesla FSD compatible specific to be used with an existing fallback. This will also help reviews of new code using existing DTS as template. No functional impact on Linux drivers behavior. Acked-by:
Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231205092229.19135-7-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Tesla FSD is a derivative of Samsung Exynos SoC, thus just like the others it reuses several devices from older designs. Historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add Tesla FSD compatible specific to be used with an existing fallback. Acked-by:
Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> Acked-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Tesla FSD is a derivative of Samsung Exynos SoC, thus just like the others it reuses several devices from older designs. Historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add Tesla FSD compatible specific to be used with an existing fallback. Acked-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Tesla FSD is a derivative of Samsung Exynos SoC, thus just like the others it reuses several devices from older designs. Historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add Tesla FSD compatible specific to be used with an existing fallback. Acked-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Tesla FSD is a derivative of Samsung Exynos SoC, thus just like the others it reuses several devices from older designs. Historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add Tesla FSD compatible specific to be used with an existing fallback. Acked-by:
Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> Acked-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Tesla FSD is a derivative of Samsung Exynos SoC, thus just like the others it reuses several devices from older designs. Historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add Tesla FSD compatible specific to be used with an existing fallback. Acked-by:
-
- 24 Nov, 2023 2 commits
-
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
ExynosAutov9 pin controller capable of wake-ups is still compatible with Exynos7, however it does not mux interrupts. Add Exynos7 compatible fallback to annotate that compatibility and match the bindings. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231122200407.423264-3-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Exynos850 pin controller capable of wake-ups is still compatible with Exynos7, however it does not mux interrupts. Add Exynos7 compatible fallback to annotate that compatibility and match the bindings. Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231122200407.423264-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
- 15 Nov, 2023 21 commits
-
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Add "samsung,exynosautov920-chipid" compatible string to binding document. Signed-off-by:
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Add binding for the ExynosAutov920 SADK(Samsung Automotive Development Kit) board. Signed-off-by:
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Add samsung,exynosautov920-pwm compatible string to binding document. Signed-off-by:
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Add samsung,exynosautov9-uart dedicated compatible for representing uart of ExynosAutov920 SoC. Signed-off-by:
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Add samsung,exynosautov920-usi dedicated compatible for representing USI of ExynosAutoV920 SoC. Signed-off-by:
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Add samsung,exynosautov920-pmu compatible for representing pmu of ExynosAutov920 SoC. Signed-off-by:
-
Jaewon Kim authored
Add compatible for ExynosAutov920 sysreg controllers. Signed-off-by:
-
Jaewon Kim authored
ExynosAutov9 SADK board has 3 keys to test external GPIO interrupt. To support this, add 3 gpio-key(Wakeup, Volume Down, Volume Up) node. Signed-off-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
ExynosAutov9 reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to ExynosAutov9 in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. This will also help reviews of new code using existing DTS as template. No functional impact on Linux drivers behavior. Reviewed-by:
Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@samsung.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231108104343.24192-18-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Exynos850 reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to Exynos850 in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. This will also help reviews of new code using existing DTS as template. No functional impact on Linux drivers behavior. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Exynos7885 reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to Exynos7885 in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. This will also help reviews of new code using existing DTS as template. No functional impact on Linux drivers behavior. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Exynos7 reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to Exynos7 in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. This will also help reviews of new code using existing DTS as template. No functional impact on Linux drivers behavior. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Exynos5433 reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to Exynos5433 in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. This will also help reviews of new code using existing DTS as template. No functional impact on Linux drivers behavior. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org> Acked-by:
Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231108104343.24192-12-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Re-shuffle also the entries in compatibles, so the one-compatible-enum is the first. Reviewed-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231108104343.24192-7-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
- 14 Nov, 2023 4 commits
-
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. While re-indenting the first enum, put also axis,artpec8-dw-mshc in alphabetical order. Reviewed-by:
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231108104343.24192-5-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by:
Wolfram Sang <wsa@kernel.org> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231108104343.24192-4-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.orgSigned-off-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Acked-by:
-
Krzysztof Kozlowski authored
Samsung Exynos SoC reuses several devices from older designs, thus historically we kept the old (block's) compatible only. This works fine and there is no bug here, however guidelines expressed in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst state that: 1. Compatibles should be specific. 2. We should add new compatibles in case of bugs or features. Add compatibles specific to each SoC in front of all old-SoC-like compatibles. Reviewed-by:
-
- 13 Nov, 2023 1 commit
-
-
Linus Torvalds authored
-
- 12 Nov, 2023 3 commits
-
-
Miri Korenblit authored
The commands should be sorted inside the group definition. Fix the ordering so we won't get following warning: WARN_ON(iwl_cmd_groups_verify_sorted(trans_cfg)) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/2fa930bb-54dd-4942-a88d-05a47c8e9731@gmail.com/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-wireless/CAHk-=wix6kqQ5vHZXjOPpZBfM7mMm9bBZxi2Jh7XnaKCqVf94w@mail.gmail.com/ Fixes: b6e3d1ba ("wifi: iwlwifi: mvm: implement new firmware API for statistics") Tested-by:
Niklāvs Koļesņikovs <pinkflames.linux@gmail.com> Tested-by:
Damian Tometzki <damian@riscv-rocks.de> Acked-by:
Kalle Valo <kvalo@kernel.org> Signed-off-by:
Miri Korenblit <miriam.rachel.korenblit@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@intel.com> Signed-off-by:
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
-
Linus Torvalds authored
Merge tag 'parisc-for-6.7-rc1-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/parisc-linux Pull parisc architecture fixes from Helge Deller: - Include the upper 5 address bits when inserting TLB entries on a 64-bit kernel. On physical machines those are ignored, but in qemu it's nice to have them included and to be correct. - Stop the 64-bit kernel and show a warning if someone tries to boot on a machine with a 32-bit CPU - Fix a "no previous prototype" warning in parport-gsc * tag 'parisc-for-6.7-rc1-2' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/deller/parisc-linux: parisc: Prevent booting 64-bit kernels on PA1.x machines parport: gsc: mark init function static parisc/pgtable: Do not drop upper 5 address bits of physical address
-
Linus Torvalds authored
Merge tag 'loongarch-6.7' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chenhuacai/linux-loongson Pull LoongArch updates from Huacai Chen: - support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with static keys - relax memory ordering for atomic operations - support BPF CPU v4 instructions for LoongArch - some build and runtime warning fixes * tag 'loongarch-6.7' of git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chenhuacai/linux-loongson: selftests/bpf: Enable cpu v4 tests for LoongArch LoongArch: BPF: Support signed mod instructions LoongArch: BPF: Support signed div instructions LoongArch: BPF: Support 32-bit offset jmp instructions LoongArch: BPF: Support unconditional bswap instructions LoongArch: BPF: Support sign-extension mov instructions LoongArch: BPF: Support sign-extension load instructions LoongArch: Add more instruction opcodes and emit_* helpers LoongArch/smp: Call rcutree_report_cpu_starting() earlier LoongArch: Relax memory ordering for atomic operations LoongArch: Mark __percpu functions as always inline LoongArch: Disable module from accessing external data directly LoongArch: Support PREEMPT_DYNAMIC with static keys
-
