Re: [PATCH 00/11] Add support for SUNIV and F1C100s.

[Giulio Benetti <giulio.benetti@benettiengineering.com>]

Hi All,

On 05/01/22 13:54, Jesse Taube wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1/5/22 07:14, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jan 2022 19:36:29 +0800
>> Icenowy Zheng <icenowy@aosc.io> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jesse,
>>
>>> 在 2022-01-04星期二的 19:34 -0500，Jesse Taube写道：
>>>> This patch set aims to add suport for the SUNIV and F1C100s.
>>>> Suport has been in linux for a while now, but not in u-boot.
>>>>
>>>> This patchset contains:
>>>> - CPU specific initialization code
>>>> - SUNIV dram driver
>>>> - SUNIV clock driver adaption
>>>> - SUNIV gpio driver adaption
>>>> - SUNIV uart driver adaption
>>>> - F1C100s basic support
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping to get Icenowy's patches in as it seems she hasnt
>>>> submitted
>>>> in a while. The only edits I made to her code is rebasing it against
>>>> ML
>>>> and changing some formating. I also re-grouped her commits.
>>>
>>> I got too lazy to send it (because I think F1C100s is just too weak)...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if the dram driver should be moved into device drivers
>>>> rather than in mach-sunxi.
>>>> I am also wondering if it is okay to submit some one elses code,
>>>> and if so how should I do so.
>>>
>>> As you are keeping my SoB and adding yours, it's totally okay.
>>
>> Thanks Icenowy for confirming!
>>
>> Jesse: yes, it's perfectly fine to send patches from someone else, as
>> long as you keep the authorship, their SoB, and add your's.
>> Typical reasons are lack of time or interest from the original author.
>>
>> But it's customary to ask the author first
> I did but it must have gotten lost in the cosmos.
> , and care should be taken
>> when changing patches, as this might not be in the interest of the
>> original author (and they are the ones who will get blamed for bugs).
>> Also please mark the series either as a Resend or as a v2.
>>
>> So with Icenowy's confirmation above I consider this fine.
>>
>> But what was actually holding back this series was lack of review,
>> testing and/or interest.
> Well the price of the SOC has gained it some popularity, aswell as a
> couple forum posts.
>> Similar to Icenowy my personal interest in
>> crufty old cores is somewhat limited, so this wasn't very high on my
>> priority list.
> It is very slow but its a good challenge.

Slow depending on application :-)
Two of my customers would like to use it in Q2/Q3 for very low-end HMIs.

And as I see, one of the last F1Cxxx is F1C800s released in 2017. Here 
the good thing they have is ram onboard.

>>
>> So given that there is apparently some interest now:
>> Can you confirm that you have reviewed the series, or at least tested
>> this?
> I have tested this yes.
> I would be interested to know if a second pair of eyes had a
>> look, and to what extent.
> I'm Sending giulio.benetti@ some boards I made he will also test. I'm
> sure many other people will be willing to test aswell.

Yes, I'll test on Jesse's board and on Lichee-pi-nano too when I have 
time, this way I'll be able to give a Tested-by: me.

Best regards
-- 
Giulio Benetti
Benetti Engineering sas

>> I don't have any hardware, so would need to
>> rely on others to make sure this code is somewhat sane.
> I can send you one of my many boards :)
>> And it basically looks like a v2 of Icenowy's series, so can you give a
>> Changelog of the differences? I skimmed over her original series back
>> then, so I would be interested in what makes this version special.
> It passes checkpatch on the latest.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andre
>>
>>> Thanks for cleaning up these patches! ;-)
> NP!
> 
> I took https://github.com/Lichee-Pi/u-boot/tree/nano-v2018.01
> re-based it against mainline and fixed formatting in a few files.
> I also removed the spi-flash driver as it was causing issues and we can
> boot from sdcard for now. there are some things I did to make the old
> code compatible with new code but mostly preprocessor and configs.
> 
> For the dram driver I had to change a bit but none of the logic, i am
> worried that i may have to move it to /drivers.
> 
> Do you want a more comprehensive list of changes?
>