| Message ID | 20250326143945.82142-16-prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for Renesas RZ/V2N SoC and EVK | expand |
On 26/03/2025 15:39, Prabhakar wrote: > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > Enable support for the Renesas RZ/V2N (R9A09G056) SoC in the ARM64 > defconfig. > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > --- > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > index 11e7d0ad8656..c7b41f86c128 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > @@ -1483,6 +1483,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_R9A07G054=y > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A08G045=y > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G011=y > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G047=y > +CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G056=y So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall. My previous comments stand. NAK Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof, On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > On 26/03/2025 15:39, Prabhakar wrote: > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > > > Enable support for the Renesas RZ/V2N (R9A09G056) SoC in the ARM64 > > defconfig. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > --- > > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > index 11e7d0ad8656..c7b41f86c128 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > @@ -1483,6 +1483,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_R9A07G054=y > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A08G045=y > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G011=y > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G047=y > > +CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G056=y > > So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix > it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall. Yes, the pattern will keep on growing. Just like the minimum kernel size will keep on growing, especially if you can no longer compile a kernel without support for SoCs you do not intend to run the kernel on. Not everyone has GiBs of RAM to spare... Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 09:55, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > On 26/03/2025 15:39, Prabhakar wrote: > > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > > > > > Enable support for the Renesas RZ/V2N (R9A09G056) SoC in the ARM64 > > > defconfig. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > > --- > > > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > > index 11e7d0ad8656..c7b41f86c128 100644 > > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > > @@ -1483,6 +1483,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_R9A07G054=y > > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A08G045=y > > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G011=y > > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G047=y > > > +CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G056=y > > > > So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix > > it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall. > > Yes, the pattern will keep on growing. > Just like the minimum kernel size will keep on growing, especially if > you can no longer compile a kernel without support for SoCs you do not > intend to run the kernel on. Not everyone has GiBs of RAM to spare... <pling! :-> /me remembers https://lore.kernel.org/all/6323eb7a-03e9-4678-ac4f-f90052d0aace@kernel.org/ Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert
> So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix > it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall. I dare to say us Renesas people are not too bad at fixing stuff. In this particular case, I don't see a wide consensus that the above stuff is considered broken? Please point me to it if there is such. We are happy to discuss.
On 27/03/2025 10:08, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 09:55, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: >> On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 at 08:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: >>> On 26/03/2025 15:39, Prabhakar wrote: >>>> From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> >>>> >>>> Enable support for the Renesas RZ/V2N (R9A09G056) SoC in the ARM64 >>>> defconfig. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig >>>> index 11e7d0ad8656..c7b41f86c128 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig >>>> @@ -1483,6 +1483,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_R9A07G054=y >>>> CONFIG_ARCH_R9A08G045=y >>>> CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G011=y >>>> CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G047=y >>>> +CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G056=y >>> >>> So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix >>> it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall. >> >> Yes, the pattern will keep on growing. >> Just like the minimum kernel size will keep on growing, especially if >> you can no longer compile a kernel without support for SoCs you do not >> intend to run the kernel on. Not everyone has GiBs of RAM to spare... > > <pling! :-> > > /me remembers > https://lore.kernel.org/all/6323eb7a-03e9-4678-ac4f-f90052d0aace@kernel.org/ Exactly that discussion and that outcome. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 27/03/2025 13:27, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix >> it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall. > > I dare to say us Renesas people are not too bad at fixing stuff. In this > particular case, I don't see a wide consensus that the above stuff is > considered broken? Please point me to it if there is such. We are happy > to discuss. > You did not object to last discussion about this (a month ago) - neither to my comments nor to resolution - so this patchset repeating the same pattern from the same folks while ignoring previous talk is contradicting "not too bad at fixing stuff". Although of course no particular bug is here to fix - I should have used "change". Anyway, it was long time ago consensus that arm64 does not receive top-level ARCH_XXX per each SoC. And this is what is being added here in this patchset. Best regards, Krzysztof
> You did not object to last discussion about this (a month ago) - neither > to my comments nor to resolution - so this patchset repeating the same Because I cannot follow every Renesas patch series there is. You are long enough around to know that large companies have different entities, groups whatsoever. It is quite a challenge to streamline this via one group, we need to share work. We do try hard, though, and have a ARM/RISC-V/RENESAS ARCHITECTURE maintainer. Geert does a *hell of a job* getting all these submission into shape, and he surely does not accept code thrown over the wall. And geez, the patch series was just sent yesterday, you didn't give us even time to raise the issue internally. > pattern from the same folks while ignoring previous talk is > contradicting "not too bad at fixing stuff". First, being a maintainer myself, I do understand the frustration of patch review not being honored. I can also agree that this series did not work out perfectly. But that does not mean that we don't care, in general. Despite all imperfection and possibly different opinions, we try hard to be a good citizen and spend considerable time on doing things right. Accusing us of throwing just "code over the wall" because there is an issue somewhere which hasn't been worked on in one month is plain unfair. That all being said, we will fix it eventually.
On 27/03/2025 17:44, Wolfram Sang wrote: > >> You did not object to last discussion about this (a month ago) - neither >> to my comments nor to resolution - so this patchset repeating the same > > Because I cannot follow every Renesas patch series there is. You are > long enough around to know that large companies have different entities, > groups whatsoever. It is quite a challenge to streamline this via one > group, we need to share work. We do try hard, though, and have a > ARM/RISC-V/RENESAS ARCHITECTURE maintainer. Geert does a *hell of a job* > getting all these submission into shape, and he surely does not accept > code thrown over the wall. And geez, the patch series was just sent > yesterday, you didn't give us even time to raise the issue internally. > >> pattern from the same folks while ignoring previous talk is >> contradicting "not too bad at fixing stuff". > > First, being a maintainer myself, I do understand the frustration of > patch review not being honored. I can also agree that this series did > not work out perfectly. But that does not mean that we don't care, in > general. Despite all imperfection and possibly different opinions, we > try hard to be a good citizen and spend considerable time on doing > things right. Accusing us of throwing just "code over the wall" because > there is an issue somewhere which hasn't been worked on in one month is > plain unfair. We do not speak about same things. I speak of review being ignored for multiple revisions in one patchset and then another patchset sending exactly the same pattern. Previous patchset receive my review about this. Thierry ignored it and send v2 with same code. Then v3 with exactly the same code, but with a remark in cover letter "but such a change is out of scope for this patchset." And now Pabhakar sends the same pattern. Each of these contributors were not changing here anything, it's like not their job. It looks like this will never get fixed, because each person wants to just get their stuff merged, so let's ignore the reviewers comments. That's not how upstreaming works - you need to change some things, fix some stuff, add more code, if you want to add your independent features. That is how upstream was always. The easiest example is - one new driver for some completely new feature is fine. Second new driver for similar new feature receives feedback: please create subsystem to have common set/handling of that new thingies. Best regards, Krzysztof
Hi Krzysztof, > We do not speak about same things. I speak of review being ignored for > multiple revisions in one patchset and then another patchset sending > exactly the same pattern. True, we are talking about two different things... > Each of these contributors were not changing here anything, it's like > not their job. It looks like this will never get fixed, because each > person wants to just get their stuff merged, so let's ignore the > reviewers comments. ... this is the technical part where you are correct. I am not arguing against it and the issue is currently being worked on as I write this mail. Then, there is the communicative part which got me. A response like "NAK, I am not applying this until you finally fix the issue. And I am getting angry for being ignored the n-th time" is totally fine and clear enough. We can escalate that internally. But generalizing Renesas and ignoring that there are individual people there, trying to fix way more issues than this particular one, is what I percieved from your responses and what I considered above the line. And yes, I am aware that you are also doing a hell of a job going through all these DT and binding patches which I think are difficult to review. For me, we are entering the space where we can leave it like this and maybe discuss details over a drink at the next conference. You are invited then! Happy hacking, Wolfram
Hi Krzysztof, Thank you for the review. On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 7:43 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote: > > On 26/03/2025 15:39, Prabhakar wrote: > > From: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > > > Enable support for the Renesas RZ/V2N (R9A09G056) SoC in the ARM64 > > defconfig. > > > > Signed-off-by: Lad Prabhakar <prabhakar.mahadev-lad.rj@bp.renesas.com> > > --- > > arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > index 11e7d0ad8656..c7b41f86c128 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > @@ -1483,6 +1483,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_R9A07G054=y > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A08G045=y > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G011=y > > CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G047=y > > +CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G056=y > > So the pattern will keep growing and none of you will ever bother to fix > it, because you have your patchset to throw over the wall. > We are working on this internally, upon approval this change won't be needed anymore for the new Renesas SoCs. Cheers, Prabhakar
diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig index 11e7d0ad8656..c7b41f86c128 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig +++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig @@ -1483,6 +1483,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_R9A07G054=y CONFIG_ARCH_R9A08G045=y CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G011=y CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G047=y +CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G056=y CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G057=y CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_IODOMAIN=y CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_132_SOC=y