Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] arm64: dts: cix: add initial CIX P1(SKY1) dts support

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 27/03/2025 09:35, Peter Chen wrote:
> On 25-03-27 08:16:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, you are deliberately choosing to make this platform useless.
>>>>
>>>> That's a bit sad, and a waste of everybody's time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your interesting of our platform, and your comments
>>> help us a lot. But I don't think it wastes reviewers and maintainers
>>> time, a clean patch set saves everyone's time during upstream process.
>>>
>>> For how to organize the patch set for SoC, Krzysztof gave good summary
>>> at [1]. We are going on upstream [2], this patch set is just a start
>>> and base but not like you said for marketing purpose.
>>
>>
>> I do not think I suggested in [1] to ever send new SoC containing only
>> CPUs and interrupt controller, without even serial. My instruction [1]
>> was how to organize it. The DTS can be even fully complete, see the
>> upstreaming example I have been using all the time - Qualcomm SM8650:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20231124-topic-sm8650-upstream-dt-v4-0-e402e73cc5f0@xxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> Entire SoC sent to mailing list on the day one of public release of that
>> flagship Qualcomm SoC. The SoC DTSI and board DTS have almost complete
>> picture, except few trickier pieces... but it even has full display and
>> GPU! Plus, as I explained on my email on samsung-soc, that DTS/DTSI
>> patchset references all other bindings with their state, so SoC
>> maintainers can understand what is the overall progress and what will be
>> the result in DT schema checks, if they apply the patchset.
>>
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> Like I said in this thread before, without this initial support,
> we can't even add mailbox binding that the dt_binding_check will
> report warnings/errors [1], the reason is "cix" has not existed
> at vendor-prefixes binding. How we handle this dependency?

Not different than all other SoCs. There is no dependency, you just send
your patch and tell where the bindings are. Just like I asked in the [1]
you linked on samsung-soc. Just like all Qualcomm upstreaming goes, e.g.
SM8650 I linked here.

Just like maintainer-soc profiles are explaining. I told you to read
them on IRC.

Your way is contradictory to three sources describing process and two of
these sources - my samsung-soc posting and maintainers-soc-clean-dts
profile - are known to you.

> 
> I thought we need to move one step and step before, and keep clean
> and avoid warning and error for every submission, but it seems not
> the way you prefer. 

No, from where did you get such impression? Maintainers-soc-clean-dts
explicitly covers this case and I WROTE IT, so how can I prefer
something else?

Follow SM8650 style or what's written in maintainer soc profiles.

Best regards,
Krzysztof