Re: [PATCH 00/20] arm64: dts: qcom: Introduce Kaanapali platform device tree

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 04/12/2025 10:09, Pavel Machek wrote:
> On Wed 2025-12-03 19:41:59, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 03/12/2025 19:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2025 19:10, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>> On Wed 2025-12-03 18:31:11, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>> On 02/12/2025 19:21, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>>>>> Hi!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Introduce the Device Tree for the recently announced Snapdragon SoC from Qualcomm:
>>>>>>> https://www.qualcomm.com/products/mobile/snapdragon/smartphones/snapdragon-8-series-mobile-platforms/snapdragon-8-elite-gen-5
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bindings and base Device Tree for the Kaanapali SoC, MTP (Mobile Test Platform)
>>>>>>> and QRD (Qualcommm Reference Device) are splited in three:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - 1-3: MTP board boot-to-shell with basic function.
>>>>>>> - 4-16: More feature including PCIE, sdcard, usb, DSPs, PMIC related, tsense, bus, crypto etc. Add QRD board support.
>>>>>>> - 17-20: Multimedia features including audio, video and camss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for doing this. I assume there devices available with this are
>>>>>> quite expensive/hard to get at this point?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please cc phone-devel@vger.kernel.org with phone related patches.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not even a phone, anyway contributors should not cc lists which
>>>>> are not relevant to the posting and not pointed out by maintainers. You
>>>>
>>>> People should Cc relevant lists, and yes, if it is called "Mobile Test
>>>> Platform", it is relevant to phone development.
>>
>> ... and btw, I know what MTP and QRD is and MTP IS NOT A PHONE. I work
>> on this, I upstream this and it is not a phone, regardless how you call
>> it. Just because we call our evalkit like that, does not make it a
> phone.
> 
> So what is it?

evalkit for SoC. Just like every other NXP evalkit board is.

> 
>>> new-hardware-devel or whatever. No. People should use tools, not guess
>>> the cc lists. Fix the tools if you miss any Cc.
> 
> No.

Then do not impose additional rules to cc foo-devel just because you
want the patches.

Best regards,
Krzysztof