Re: [PATCH 14/16] arm64: dts: axis: Add initial device tree support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 21/07/2025 09:08, sungmin park wrote:
>>> index fa1e04e87d1d..371005f3f41a 100644
>>> --- a/MAINTAINERS
>>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS
>>> @@ -2320,6 +2320,20 @@ F:       drivers/crypto/axis
>>>  F:     drivers/mmc/host/usdhi6rol0.c
>>>  F:     drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec*
>>>  
>>> +ARM/ARTPEC ARM64 MACHINE SUPPORT
>>
>> This is samsung soc, so I need a pattern for that as well as I will
>> be
>> handling patches.
> 
> Can you please explain what you mean to say?


Something like I sent for Tesla the same day or shortly after I
commented on this.

>  
>>
>>> +M:     Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>
>>> +M:     Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@samsung.com>
>>> +M:     SeonGu Kang <ksk4725@coasia.com>
>>> +M:     SungMin Park <smn1196@coasia.com>
>>
>> Please keep only maintainers who will actually perform reviews of the
>> code. I am not even sure if this is worth separate entry outside of
>> Samsung. Please list the IP blocks which are not Samsung here.

Are you going to implement this in the next patch?

> 
> Is it fine if I merge the list with existing ARTPEC entry?

No. Did you read my message? I am not maintainer of existing ARTPEC SoC.


> Samsung and Coasia entry can be removed from list as Axis will be only
> maintaining the ARTPEC-8 SoC in future.
> Please suggest your opinion here.
> 
>>
>>> +L:     linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org (moderated for non-
>>> subscribers)
>>> +L:     linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
>>> +L:     linux-arm-kernel@axis.com
>>> +S:     Maintained
>>> +F:     Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/axis,artpec*-
>>> clock.yaml
>>> +F:     arch/arm64/boot/dts/axis/
>>> +F:     drivers/clk/samsung/clk-artpec*.c
>>> +F:     include/dt-bindings/clock/axis,artpec*-clk.h
>>> +
>>>  ARM/ASPEED I2C DRIVER
>>>  M:     Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@aspeedtech.com>
>>>  R:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
>>> b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
>>> index 8b76821f190f..418ee47227c1 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
>>> @@ -40,6 +40,19 @@ config ARCH_APPLE
>>>           This enables support for Apple's in-house ARM SoC family,
>>> such
>>>           as the Apple M1.
>>>  
>>> +config ARCH_ARTPEC
>>> +       bool "Axis Communications ARTPEC SoC Family"
>>> +       help
>>> +          This enables support for the ARMv8 based ARTPEC SoC
>>> Family.
>>> +
>>> +config ARCH_ARTPEC8
>>
>> No, drop. One ARCH symbol.
>>
>>> +       bool "Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC Platform"
>>> +       depends on ARCH_ARTPEC
>>> +       depends on ARCH_EXYNOS
>>
>> And that's the proof that this is Samsung SoC.
> 
> Should I move the axis folder inside exynos just like google did? In
> that case we don't need separate ARCH entry anymore.
> Or should I follow the tesla FSD style to add axis folder outside
> exynos? In that case I will keep ARCH_ARTPEC entry only.
> Please suggest your opinion here.


You did not describe the hardware really. Neither in commit msg, nor in
cover letter nor here where I asked to list the non-Samsung IP blocks. I
will not provide you guidelines based on magic crystal ball guesses.


Best regards,
Krzysztof