Re: [PATCH V2 RESEND] soc: loongson: add Loongson Security Module driver

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 03/01/2025 03:25, Zhao Qunqin wrote:
> 
> 在 2024/12/28 下午7:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
>> On 24/12/2024 08:25, Qunqin Zhao wrote:
>>> This driver supports Loongson Security Module, which
>>> provides the control for it's hardware encryption
>>> acceleration child devices.
>> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
>> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
> OK
>>> Only ACPI firmware is supported.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Qunqin Zhao <zhaoqunqin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> I don't get why you are sending this to soc. This is loongson specific
>> and is supposed to go via Loongson maintainers.
>>
>> And why is this a resend?
> 
> There are no platform-specific maintainers, So I initially sent the 
> patch to Arnd,

What do you mean by "no platform-specific maintainers"? This
architecture and this platform is abandoned?

Then we should either drop it from the kernel or make it orphaned.


> 
> but didn't receive a response from Arnold, so I resent the patch and added
> 
> soc@xxxxxxxxxx to the mailing list.

You shouldn't. This is patch for your maintainers to take. If you do not
have them: either fix that or abandon/orphan the platform.


> 
>>> ---
>>> Changes in v2:
>>> 	- Removed useless memset() in probe.
>>> 	- Cleaned up coding style.
>>> 	- Corrected the spelling.
>>>
>>>   MAINTAINERS                        |   7 +
>>>   drivers/soc/loongson/Kconfig       |   9 +
>>>   drivers/soc/loongson/Makefile      |   1 +
>>>   drivers/soc/loongson/loongson_se.c | 523 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   include/soc/loongson/se.h          | 135 ++++++++
>>
>> include/linux/soc/... or just keep it private to the driver. Why this
>> has to be exposed to other users?
> 
> Looks like  include/linux/soc... is more suitable than include/soc/...
> 
> This driver is the base of other users,  one user will be added in next 
> revision.

No. Keep it private to the driver.

Soc driver is usually not a "base for other users".

> 
> And may I ask which one do you think is more suitable to place this 
> basic driver under SOC or MFD ?

I was talking about the header.

Best regards,
Krzysztof