From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757077AbcISI5F (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:57:05 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f43.google.com ([74.125.82.43]:37855 "EHLO mail-wm0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752103AbcISI4z (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:56:55 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 09:56:50 +0100 From: Peter Griffin To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, patrice.chotard@st.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/19] [RESEND] Remove STiH415 and STiH416 SoC platform support Message-ID: <20160919085650.GA4948@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> References: <1473859677-9231-1-git-send-email-peter.griffin@linaro.org> <7524458.uFhxDUCqEo@wuerfel> <20160915070139.GA14319@griffinp-ThinkPad-X1-Carbon-2nd> <10792443.jxCOopyCy4@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10792443.jxCOopyCy4@wuerfel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnd, On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:01:39 AM CEST Peter Griffin wrote: > > > > STiH415 I'm sure never shipped. I'm reasonably sure STiH416 didn't > > either. These SoCs were considered legacy even when I was at ST > > ~3 years ago. > > > > Also remember these are STB SoC's, so JTAG fuses are blown in > > production boxes, and also full security is enabled. This means the > > primary bootloader will only boot a signed kernel. So if a end user > > did happen to have a box they would be unable to upgrade their kernel. > > > > From the landing team perspective they were interesting in that they > > shared many IPs with the STiH407 family on which future chipsets were > > based, and were available to us when that silicon was harder to get > > hold of. So we used it as a vehicle for upstreaming so that upstream > > support was already quite good when STiH407 silicon did land on our > > desk. > > Ok, makes sense. I did stumble over one machine basedon STiH412 > the other day [1], but there probably isn't much shared with that > one. Since this a NAS server rather than an STB box, it's probably > less locked-down and potentially a target for OpenWRT or similar. I just double checked with ST and STiH412 is a STiH407 family based SoC so support still exists for this upstream. No idea what if any security is enabled on this product though. Most probably the A/V stack on it will be SDK2, although native upstream multimedia drivers for this chipset are looking pretty good now. Peter. > [1] http://www.heise.de/preisvergleich/synology-diskstation-ds216play-16tb-a1400885.html