Re: [PATCH 0/7] Add support for the Axis ARTPEC-9 SoC

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 18/09/2025 12:36, Ravi Patel wrote:
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 18 September 2025 06:35
>> To: Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@xxxxxxxxxxx>; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; krzk+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; conor+dt@xxxxxxxxxx; jesper.nilsson@xxxxxxxx;
>> lars.persson@xxxxxxxx; mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx; sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx; alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx; s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>> cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: ksk4725@xxxxxxxxxx; smn1196@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxx; devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
>> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pjsin865@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> gwk1013@xxxxxxxxxx; bread@xxxxxxxxxx; jspark@xxxxxxxxxx; limjh0823@xxxxxxxxxx; lightwise@xxxxxxxxxx; hgkim05@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> mingyoungbo@xxxxxxxxxx; shradha.t@xxxxxxxxxxx; swathi.ks@xxxxxxxxxxx; kenkim@xxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Add support for the Axis ARTPEC-9 SoC
>>
>> On 17/09/2025 17:49, Ravi Patel wrote:
>>> Add basic support for the Axis ARTPEC-9 SoC which contains
>>> 6-core Cortex-A55 CPU and other several IPs. This SoC is an
>>> Axis-designed chipset used in surveillance camera products.
>>>
>>> This ARTPEC-9 SoC has a variety of Samsung-specific IP blocks and
>>> Axis-specific IP blocks and SoC is manufactured by Samsung Foundry.
>>>
>>> This patch series includes below changes:
>>> - CMU (Clock Management Unit) driver and its bindings (patch #1 to #3)
>>> - PMU bindings (patch #4)
>>> - Basic Device Tree for ARTPEC-9 SoC and boards (patch #5 to #7)
>>>
>>> The patch series has been tested on the ARTPEC-9 EVB with
>>> Linux Samsung SoC tree (for-next branch) and intended
>>> to be merged via the `arm-soc` tree.
>>>
>>> NOTE: This patch series is dependent on following floating patches:
>>> 1. https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250917070004.87872-1-ravi.patel@xxxxxxxxxxx/T/#t
>>
>> NAK, sorry, DTS cannot depend on the drivers. Please decouple the
>> dependencies.
> 
> Ok, so you want patch #1 - #5 in separate series and #6 - #7 (DTS patches) in another series.

No, I meant above dependencies. You said that these patchset, including
DTS, depends on above. Above are drivers and that's a no go. I said it
multiple times already in various occasions.

Patchset should be organized per maintainers subsystem, but that's
different question.

> Can you please review the patches, I will address review comments in v2 (if any) itself.

As mentioned in other threads, I closed my tree a week ago (if you are
surprised, notice kernel cycles and development process), so review will
happen a bit later.

> 
>>
>> Maybe you wanted to point me where the bindings are, but then say so.
> 
> Yes, these dependencies are for bindings related.
So not really a dependency so again: just provide links to the bindings.

Best regards,
Krzysztof