Message ID | 20240703025850.2172008-1-quic_tengfan@quicinc.com |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | arm64: qcom: dts: add QCS9100 support | expand |
On 7/4/2024 2:49 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > This is some bug / false positive in the bot, to be clear. > Commit df18948d331e is ("Merge branch 'device-memory-tcp'"). > No idea how it got from that to DTS. This issue may be due to the patch series being too large. In the future, I plan to split the patch series by different subsystem, which should prevent similar issue.
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 09:13:59AM +0800, Tengfei Fan wrote: > > > On 7/3/2024 11:09 PM, Andrew Halaney wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 10:58:32AM GMT, Tengfei Fan wrote: > > > Add the compatible for the MAC controller on qcs9100 platforms. This MAC > > > works with a single interrupt so add minItems to the interrupts property. > > > The fourth clock's name is different here so change it. Enable relevant > > > PHY properties. Add the relevant compatibles to the binding document for > > > snps,dwmac as well. > > > > This description doesn't match what was done in this patch, its what > > Bart did when he made changes to add the sa8775 changes. Please consider > > using a blurb indicating that this is the same SoC as sa8775p, just with > > different firmware strategies or something along those lines? > > I will update this commit message as you suggested. Hi Andrew, Tengfei Please trim emails when replying to just the needed context. Thanks Andrew
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 06:03:14PM GMT, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 09:13:59AM +0800, Tengfei Fan wrote: > > > > > > On 7/3/2024 11:09 PM, Andrew Halaney wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 10:58:32AM GMT, Tengfei Fan wrote: > > > > Add the compatible for the MAC controller on qcs9100 platforms. This MAC > > > > works with a single interrupt so add minItems to the interrupts property. > > > > The fourth clock's name is different here so change it. Enable relevant > > > > PHY properties. Add the relevant compatibles to the binding document for > > > > snps,dwmac as well. > > > > > > This description doesn't match what was done in this patch, its what > > > Bart did when he made changes to add the sa8775 changes. Please consider > > > using a blurb indicating that this is the same SoC as sa8775p, just with > > > different firmware strategies or something along those lines? > > > > I will update this commit message as you suggested. > > Hi Andrew, Tengfei > > Please trim emails when replying to just the needed context. > Sorry, I'm always a little guilty of this. In this case I didn't trim since the patch was small and trimming the diff out would then make it tough to see how my comment about the description relates to the body of the patch. But I'll try and trim when appropriate. Just replying here to explain myself as this isn't the first time I've been suggested to trim more aggressively and I don't want folks to think I'm completely ignoring them. Thanks, Andrew
On 7/8/2024 2:07 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 08/07/2024 06:45, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: >> >> >> On 7/3/2024 5:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 03/07/2024 11:21, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>>>>> - items: >>>>>> - enum: >>>>>> + - qcom,qcs9100-ride >>>>>> - qcom,sa8775p-ride >>>>>> + - const: qcom,qcs9100 >>>>> >>>>> This changes existing compatible for sa8775p without any explanation in >>>>> commit msg. >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Krzysztof >>>>> >>>> >>>> In the next verion patch series, I will provide relevant explanatory >>>> information in this patch commit message. >>> >>> TBH, I cannot think of any reasonable explanation for this, especially >>> considering rest of the patchset which does not fix resulting dtbs_check >>> warning. >> >> The existing compatible "sa8775p" warning can only be addressed When >> @Nikunj's "sa8775p" changes merged. >> >> Let me know if you have other suggestions for this. > > I don't have, because I don't understand why do you want/need to change > existing board compatible. We can left the current existing sa8775p board compatible as it is. And have a brand new qcs9100 and qcs9100-board item for current non-scmi resources compatible. Will that be more reasonable from your end? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof >
On 08/07/2024 09:13, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: > > > On 7/8/2024 2:07 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 08/07/2024 06:45, Aiqun Yu (Maria) wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 7/3/2024 5:33 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 03/07/2024 11:21, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>>>>>> - items: >>>>>>> - enum: >>>>>>> + - qcom,qcs9100-ride >>>>>>> - qcom,sa8775p-ride >>>>>>> + - const: qcom,qcs9100 >>>>>> >>>>>> This changes existing compatible for sa8775p without any explanation in >>>>>> commit msg. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Krzysztof >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the next verion patch series, I will provide relevant explanatory >>>>> information in this patch commit message. >>>> >>>> TBH, I cannot think of any reasonable explanation for this, especially >>>> considering rest of the patchset which does not fix resulting dtbs_check >>>> warning. >>> >>> The existing compatible "sa8775p" warning can only be addressed When >>> @Nikunj's "sa8775p" changes merged. >>> >>> Let me know if you have other suggestions for this. >> >> I don't have, because I don't understand why do you want/need to change >> existing board compatible. > > We can left the current existing sa8775p board compatible as it is. And > have a brand new qcs9100 and qcs9100-board item for current non-scmi > resources compatible. > > Will that be more reasonable from your end? Yes, this is what I would expect. If you choose any other way - just like I wrote - you need to explain why you are doing this. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 7/5/2024 12:03 AM, Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 09:13:59AM +0800, Tengfei Fan wrote: >> >> >> On 7/3/2024 11:09 PM, Andrew Halaney wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 10:58:32AM GMT, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>>> Add the compatible for the MAC controller on qcs9100 platforms. This MAC >>>> works with a single interrupt so add minItems to the interrupts property. >>>> The fourth clock's name is different here so change it. Enable relevant >>>> PHY properties. Add the relevant compatibles to the binding document for >>>> snps,dwmac as well. >>> >>> This description doesn't match what was done in this patch, its what >>> Bart did when he made changes to add the sa8775 changes. Please consider >>> using a blurb indicating that this is the same SoC as sa8775p, just with >>> different firmware strategies or something along those lines? >> >> I will update this commit message as you suggested. > > Hi Andrew, Tengfei > > Please trim emails when replying to just the needed context. > > Thanks > Andrew Thank you for pointing out this. In the future, I will pay attention to trimming emails when I reply.
On 7/3/2024 2:28 PM, Conor Dooley wrote: > On Wed, Jul 03, 2024 at 06:45:00AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 03/07/2024 05:56, Tengfei Fan wrote: >>> Introduce support for the QCS9100 SoC device tree (DTSI) and the >>> QCS9100 RIDE board DTS. The QCS9100 is a variant of the SA8775p. >>> While the QCS9100 platform is still in the early design stage, the >>> QCS9100 RIDE board is identical to the SA8775p RIDE board, except it >>> mounts the QCS9100 SoC instead of the SA8775p SoC. >> >> The same huge patchset, to huge number of recipients was sent twice. >> First, sorry, this is way too big. Second, it has way too many >> recipients, but this is partially a result of first point. Only >> partially because you put here dozen of totally unrelated emails. Sorry, >> that does not make even sense. See form letter at the end how this >> works. Third, sending it to everyone twice is a way to annoy them off >> twice... Fourth, >> >> Please split your work and do not cc dozen of unrelated folks. > > One of the extra recipients is cos that of that patch I sent adding the > cache bindings to the cache entry, forgetting that that would CC the > riscv list on all cache bindings. I modified that patch to drop the riscv > list from the entry. > > Cheers, > Conor. Thank you, Conor!