Re: [PATCH 0/9] arm64: introduce Black Sesame Technologies C1200 SoC and CDCU1.0 board

Albert Yang
2025-09-26T01:48:17Z

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 03:38:44PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, at 15:34, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Sept 2025 at 14:12, Albert Yang <yangzh0906@thundersoft.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 05:03:57PM +0800, Albert Yang wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > At least to me, I would not consider that a problem. As long as you
> > can test the pieces together "manually" that's fine, I think.
> >
> > I mean, the platform was not supported in the first place, so it's not
> > like we would be introducing a regression - or break something, right?
>
> Agreed, it's rare for newly added platforms to immediately have
> everything working, and we can still fix things if they don't.
>
> It's also possible to test userspace by using a standalone
> initramfs with a login shell or an automated test suite, but
> I don't require that.

Hi Arnd, Ulf,

Thank you both for the clarifications.

Understood regarding validation expectations. I'll proceed with the split:
* v5 SoC series (no MMC binding/driver, no mmc nodes in dtsi)
* Separate MMC series (binding + driver) to linux-mmc
* Follow-up enable patch once the driver lands

If any critical fix is found while iterating on the MMC series, I'll send
a follow-up patch depending on timing.

I'll move ahead with preparing v5 accordingly.

Thanks again for the guidance.

Best regards,
Albert Yang