Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] riscv: add initial support for SpacemiT K1

Conor Dooley
2024-06-18T10:17:04Z

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4549 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:34:27PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 04:32:59PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:11:17PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 10:48:11PM +0000, Yixun Lan wrote:
> > > > Hi Conor
> > > > Thanks for bringing this up
> > > >
> > > > On 19:35 Sun 16 Jun , Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 01:18:52AM +0800, Yangyu Chen wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > No MAINTAINERS update, so I figure that means you don't want to maintain
> > > > > it going forwards? If there's someone out that that does care about the
> > > > > spacemit k1 (Jesse maybe?), then I'd be more than happy to have them
> > > > > look after it.
> > > > Yangyu kind of has limited time, too many stuff for him..
> > > >
> > > > I'd volunteered to help on this if it can fill the gap
> > > > Also I'd be more than happy if anyone willing step forward to co-maintain..
> > >
> > > Does maintainership work like this? Is willing to do enough?
> > > FWICT, maintainership involves active patch contributing, reviewing and
> > > maintaining the whole SoC. It is better to take over the maintainership
> > > after showing enough patch contributions and understanding of the SoC.
> >
> > I was going to reply to your other patch about providing more complete
> > "basic" support for the SoC, but I guess I'll reply here and address
> > both points. After the k230 and th1520, which were both merged with very
>
> When I saw k230 a few minutes ago, I assumed you mean k210 since I
> didn't found k230 support in linus tree now. After searching the
> maillist, I found oh there is a k230 series which is similar to this
> series, no pinctrl, no clk, no reset. Since the incomplete K230 initial
> series hasn't been merged into Linus tree now, is it possible to drop
> it so that we can avoid the same mistake for k230.

Yeah, I think you're right there and I should drop the k230 stuff from
for-next. I forgot that it was not already in, because I had sent it for
6.10 and Arnd didn't like some of the inter-branch dependencies that my
PR had and told me to drop it. If nobody really cares for getting the
platform to a reasonably usable state, then I guess we will just not
support it. And it seems like there's little interest in it, despite
being the first system you could buy with ratified vector. It's not a
great platform to work with documentation wise, at least as a non-Chinese
speaker like myself nor is the U-Boot M-Mode -> OpenSBI -> Linux vendor
boot flow good for iterating on kernels.

> > basic support and have made very little progress towards being a useful
> > platform, I'm pretty reluctant to merge another platform in a super
> > basic state. I was going to make this point before you brought it up,
> > but it's good to know I am not the only one with that view. To be clear,
> > I'm not pointing blame for those platforms, I'd just like to avoid a
>
> Yep previously I thought it was fine to use a fixed clock or dummy clock
> during the initial patches, but I changed my mind now, especially after
> Samuel complained the cv1800b reset dt changes.
>
> > repeat. If Yangyu doesn't have time to do any development work on the
> > platform, I'd like to see someone else (and as I mentioned Jesse is
> > interested) take on getting some of the basic driver patches written and
> > merge only when those are accepted. Having no in-tree clock and pinctrl
> > drivers is definitely a hindrance to other people doing parallel
> > development of drivers and I'd like to avoid that.
> >
> > Getting back to your point in this mail, whoever gets the platform to
> > that state is well suited to looking after it going forwards. Some other
>
> The person who can bring the platfrom support to a well-moduled state,
> IE, proper clk, pinctrl, reset drivers shows the passion, the code
> contribution and solid understanding of the SoC, sure he/she is
> definitely suited to maintain the SoC. I just don't think it's
> a good practice a person can became maintainer even w/o one LoC
> contrubition to the SoC, because IMHO code contribution matters
> for maintainership.

Right, and the th1520 is suffering a bit from that at the moment, the
maintainers other than yourself haven't sent a single LoC for it, and
have not gotten involved after you have become unable to spend time on
it. I do know that things are likely to change there soon, which is
good.

Thanks,
Conor.

[-- Attachment #1.2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]