Re: [PATCH RFC 04/10] ARM: cortina: Add support for the CS75xx SoC family

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2026, at 13:43, Fil Dunsky wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2026 at 01:36:32PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> How about making this one ARCH_CORTINA_ACCESS to match the 64-bit port
>> (saturn, venus) that Jason posted at
>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/20260610112821.3030099-5-jason.li@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>>
>> I think this would be consistent with how we deal with other
>> acquisitions (storm->cortina, freescale->nxp, ...). I would
>> leave Gemini as-is because changing the name only causes problems,
>> but for the new platform I would use the current name of the company
>> that last sold them.
>
> Thanks for digging out the history, that makes sense. I will use
> ARCH_CORTINA_ACCESS for v2 and keep arch/arm/mach-goldengate as the
> directory name, as Linus suggested.

I think I would go with mach-cortina here. Or even better would be
to find a way not to need any code. If you control the boot loader,
you could just implement the psci ops there and actually bring
up the CPU from EL3. If that doesn't work, maybe it is time to
actually have a generic spin-table implementation on arm32 the
way we do on arm64. As far as I can tell, your code is just
a copy of that anyway, though we have so far never added this to
common arm32 code in order to encourage SoC vendors to use psci.

> Should the DT side follow as well? That would mean a "cortina-access,"
> vendor prefix (added by this series, as Jason's has not landed yet),
> "cortina-access,cs7542" and "cortina-access,cs7542-uart" instead of
> "cortina,...", and arch/arm/boot/dts/cortina-access/ for the dts. I
> have no preference, I would just like to change it only once.

I don't have a strong preference either. If nobody else has a clear
guidance, changing to "cortina-access,..." would seems the most consistent
to me.

    Arnd