Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] arm64: dts: cix: add initial CIX P1(SKY1) dts support

[Peter Chen <peter.chen@cixtech.com>]

On 25-03-27 09:40:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL
> 
> On 27/03/2025 09:35, Peter Chen wrote:
> > On 25-03-27 08:16:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> No, you are deliberately choosing to make this platform useless.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's a bit sad, and a waste of everybody's time.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Marc,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for your interesting of our platform, and your comments
> >>> help us a lot. But I don't think it wastes reviewers and maintainers
> >>> time, a clean patch set saves everyone's time during upstream process.
> >>>
> >>> For how to organize the patch set for SoC, Krzysztof gave good summary
> >>> at [1]. We are going on upstream [2], this patch set is just a start
> >>> and base but not like you said for marketing purpose.
> >>
> >>
> >> I do not think I suggested in [1] to ever send new SoC containing only
> >> CPUs and interrupt controller, without even serial. My instruction [1]
> >> was how to organize it. The DTS can be even fully complete, see the
> >> upstreaming example I have been using all the time - Qualcomm SM8650:
> >>
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231124-topic-sm8650-upstream-dt-v4-0-e402e73cc5f0@linaro.org/
> >>
> >> Entire SoC sent to mailing list on the day one of public release of that
> >> flagship Qualcomm SoC. The SoC DTSI and board DTS have almost complete
> >> picture, except few trickier pieces... but it even has full display and
> >> GPU! Plus, as I explained on my email on samsung-soc, that DTS/DTSI
> >> patchset references all other bindings with their state, so SoC
> >> maintainers can understand what is the overall progress and what will be
> >> the result in DT schema checks, if they apply the patchset.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > Like I said in this thread before, without this initial support,
> > we can't even add mailbox binding that the dt_binding_check will
> > report warnings/errors [1], the reason is "cix" has not existed
> > at vendor-prefixes binding. How we handle this dependency?
> 
> Not different than all other SoCs. There is no dependency, you just send
> your patch and tell where the bindings are. Just like I asked in the [1]
> you linked on samsung-soc. Just like all Qualcomm upstreaming goes, e.g.
> SM8650 I linked here.
> 
> Just like maintainer-soc profiles are explaining. I told you to read
> them on IRC.
> 
> Your way is contradictory to three sources describing process and two of
> these sources - my samsung-soc posting and maintainers-soc-clean-dts
> profile - are known to you.
> 
> >
> > I thought we need to move one step and step before, and keep clean
> > and avoid warning and error for every submission, but it seems not
> > the way you prefer.
> 
> No, from where did you get such impression? Maintainers-soc-clean-dts
> explicitly covers this case and I WROTE IT, so how can I prefer
> something else?
> 

Krzysztof, I did not mean soc dts, I mean the mailbox binding checking
warning which depends on this patch set.

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/174290730775.1655008.14031380406017771195.robh@kernel.org/

-- 

Best regards,
Peter