From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-m19731118.qiye.163.com (mail-m19731118.qiye.163.com [220.197.31.118]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A8012FC897; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 12:27:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.118 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758803247; cv=none; b=rS693tfqH464JJIKgRWVFDjPsoeyVok/rcR/QkItWLOGE6lXrFZHPkAMpvtH+X9cb5U/Rq8SufHAUjqtYCNB7+FVtLtctKlH4JI5ZaYl/jTNFYUEEVMni9MtyM6llK6hlpkU+ihgRwYgnnLXCMB1vRhWL0Sfl7s5bxUYyBZrsGY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758803247; c=relaxed/simple; bh=gYBSjV3A3ooxiOPwbQrY6yaQ+S7lDvaqMNSGiSIoVDU=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=f9wxnkDodKESzMMcS8Iq9oMHbyyJ5cxh0Y/DMzMm2mz2Ty2oUtmCZeIdONH0DhdJr9Ky9OSQZ63leIy1mD+BZU2OOTDa8ycjpQv2W1QPXU5WbvicGBRe0yPX2/6kCG6jVwCV35h065jdMFwVy2L2p4hDJ4xqouSFfLGzSs78kxU= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=thundersoft.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=thundersoft.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thundersoft.com header.i=@thundersoft.com header.b=lMq0Zdbl; arc=none smtp.client-ip=220.197.31.118 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=thundersoft.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=thundersoft.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=thundersoft.com header.i=@thundersoft.com header.b="lMq0Zdbl" Received: from albert-OptiPlex-7080.. (unknown [117.184.129.134]) by smtp.qiye.163.com (Hmail) with ESMTP id 240dfac53; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:11:56 +0800 (GMT+08:00) From: Albert Yang To: arnd@arndb.de Cc: adrian.hunter@intel.com, bst-upstream@bstai.top, catalin.marinas@arm.com, conor+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, gordon.ge@bst.ai, krzk+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, robh@kernel.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, will@kernel.org, yangzh0906@thundersoft.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] arm64: introduce Black Sesame Technologies C1200 SoC and CDCU1.0 board Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:11:54 +0800 Message-ID: <20250925121155.2401934-1-yangzh0906@thundersoft.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.43.0 In-Reply-To: <20250925090412.2068216-1-yangzh0906@thundersoft.com> References: <20250925090412.2068216-1-yangzh0906@thundersoft.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-HM-Tid: 0a9980c98bf209cckunm0dbea3318270a9 X-HM-MType: 1 X-HM-Spam-Status: e1kfGhgUHx5ZQUpXWQgPGg8OCBgUHx5ZQUlOS1dZFg8aDwILHllBWSg2Ly tZV1koWUFITzdXWS1ZQUlXWQ8JGhUIEh9ZQVkaT04ZVkNOS0NKSh0ZT0pCT1YVFAkWGhdVEwETFh oSFyQUDg9ZV1kYEgtZQVlKSkxVSkNPVUpJQlVKSE9ZV1kWGg8SFR0UWUFZT0tIVUpLSU9PT0hVSk tLVUpCS0tZBg++ DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; b=lMq0ZdblTM4Zv2oMG3N+IorP8ydfWF/POg1If0IxGoUdZpVXrgamH/KY+J5nm03NYw1du4yJQMv12lrKqKLjh5RdA40kpajnglkSyGdO8hNpW9vHCtTkuls4L3JFqxzTZqPUg1DjwcWPvdkKPPFQsrwAwYGCOtKsvuT5kiIIRuI=; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=default; d=thundersoft.com; v=1; bh=eo5MQOkGyElXlEHPuquWDvolz5tCt5MH2A2PG0iQrcA=; h=date:mime-version:subject:message-id:from; On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 05:03:57PM +0800, Albert Yang wrote:Subject: Re: [PATCH] splitting SoC and MMC parts Hi Arnd, I may have missed an important detail in my previous note. If I split out the MMC-related patches and submit only the SoC parts first, I cannot validate the SoC on real hardware: both the kernel and the root filesystem live on the MMC device. Without the MMC stack (DT bindings and the controller driver), the board does not boot to userspace, so I cannot properly verify the SoC/DT changes in isolation. Would you prefer that I: - keep the MMC pieces in the same series for initial bring-up; or - validate everything locally, then send only the SoC/DT parts first and follow up with the MMC binding/driver as a separate series? I’m not entirely sure which approach best matches the normal workflow, so your guidance would be appreciated. I can proceed whichever way you think is most appropriate. Thanks for the review and suggestions. Best regards, Albert