Addressed comments from:
- Philippe: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg621710.html
Summary of changes since previous update:
- Now use SPDX ids instead of traditional license boilerplate. Top of file
comments are now C++ style comments.
- Changed reviewers listed in MAINTAINERS.
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@+menuconfigARCH_NPCM+bool"Nuvoton NPCM Architecture"+selectARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB+selectUSE_OF+selectPINCTRL+selectPINCTRL_NPCM7XX++ifARCH_NPCM++comment"NPCM7XX CPU type"++configARCH_NPCM750+depends onARCH_NPCM&&ARCH_MULTI_V7+bool"Support for NPCM750 BMC CPU (Poleg)"+selectCACHE_L2X0+selectCPU_V7+selectARM_GIC+selectHAVE_SMP+selectSMP+selectSMP_ON_UP+selectHAVE_ARM_SCU+selectHAVE_ARM_TWDifSMP+selectARM_ERRATA_720789+selectARM_ERRATA_754322+selectARM_ERRATA_764369+selectARM_ERRATA_794072+selectPL310_ERRATA_588369+selectPL310_ERRATA_727915+selectUSB_EHCI_ROOT_HUB_TT+selectUSB_ARCH_HAS_HCD+selectUSB_ARCH_HAS_EHCI+selectUSB_EHCI_HCD+selectUSB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI+selectUSB_OHCI_HCD+selectUSB+selectFIQ+selectCPU_USE_DOMAINS+selectGENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS+selectCLKDEV_LOOKUP+selectCOMMON_CLKifOF+selectNPCM750_TIMER+selectMFD_SYSCON+help+SupportforNPCM750BMCCPU(Poleg).++NuvotonNPCM750BMCbasedontheCortexA9.++endif
From: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> Date: 2018-02-13 06:23:25
Hi Brendan,
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
Add a common device tree for all Nuvoton NPCM750 BMCs and a board
specific device tree for the NPCM750 (Poleg) evaluation board.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
This looks well acked, reviewed and tested. How do you plan to have
the ARM SoC maintainers merge your patches?
You need to add nuvoton-npcm750-evb.dts to arch/arm/boot/dts/Makefile
Once you've done that you can add
Tested-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
as I tested this on an EVB.
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
Add a common device tree for all Nuvoton NPCM750 BMCs and a board
specific device tree for the NPCM750 (Poleg) evaluation board.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
...
+ enable-method = "nuvoton,npcm7xx-smp";
I see this has already been reviewed quite a bit, but I'm curious
about the 'npcm7xx'
part here. Shouldn't that be a real chip name rather than a wildcard?
Arnd
From: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com> Date: 2018-02-13 09:30:00
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Add a common device tree for all Nuvoton NPCM750 BMCs and a board
specific device tree for the NPCM750 (Poleg) evaluation board.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
...
quoted
+ enable-method = "nuvoton,npcm7xx-smp";
I see this has already been reviewed quite a bit, but I'm curious
about the 'npcm7xx'
part here. Shouldn't that be a real chip name rather than a wildcard?
Arnd
There is a family of npcm7xx, some with SMP and some without.
For those who has it, it is common for all to use the same
"nuvoton,npcm7xx-smp".
Avi
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Avi Fishman [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Add a common device tree for all Nuvoton NPCM750 BMCs and a board
specific device tree for the NPCM750 (Poleg) evaluation board.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
...
quoted
+ enable-method = "nuvoton,npcm7xx-smp";
I see this has already been reviewed quite a bit, but I'm curious
about the 'npcm7xx'
part here. Shouldn't that be a real chip name rather than a wildcard?
Arnd
There is a family of npcm7xx, some with SMP and some without.
For those who has it, it is common for all to use the same
"nuvoton,npcm7xx-smp".
I think Arnd is right. In this case it should be "nuvoton,npcm750-smp". We can
use CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE to alias to as many compatible properties as needed.
Although everything in the 7xx family currently is either single core or has the
same SMP behavior, you could paint yourself into a corner if you were to make
one SMP device in the 7xx family which behaves differently from all other
devices and then need to come up with new compatible string names just for that.
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 8:12 PM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 1:29 AM, Avi Fishman [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:57 AM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Add a common device tree for all Nuvoton NPCM750 BMCs and a board
specific device tree for the NPCM750 (Poleg) evaluation board.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
...
quoted
+ enable-method = "nuvoton,npcm7xx-smp";
I see this has already been reviewed quite a bit, but I'm curious
about the 'npcm7xx'
part here. Shouldn't that be a real chip name rather than a wildcard?
There is a family of npcm7xx, some with SMP and some without.
For those who has it, it is common for all to use the same
"nuvoton,npcm7xx-smp".
I think Arnd is right. In this case it should be "nuvoton,npcm750-smp". We can
use CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE to alias to as many compatible properties as needed.
Although everything in the 7xx family currently is either single core or has the
same SMP behavior, you could paint yourself into a corner if you were to make
one SMP device in the 7xx family which behaves differently from all other
devices and then need to come up with new compatible string names just for that.
Right, this is the reason for the very simple 'no wildcards in DT
identifiers' rule.
There simply isn't a reason to make an exception here.
Arnd
From: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au> Date: 2018-02-15 02:29:15
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Joel Stanley [off-list ref] wrote:
Hi Brendan,
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Add a common device tree for all Nuvoton NPCM750 BMCs and a board
specific device tree for the NPCM750 (Poleg) evaluation board.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
This looks well acked, reviewed and tested. How do you plan to have
the ARM SoC maintainers merge your patches?
Following up on an IRC conversation with Brendan:
The process is normally to create a git branch based on on -rc1, apply
your patches, and send them to the ARM maintainers. You then push a
signed tag to a repository somewhere, send a pull request (a git
request-pull email, not a Github PR) and Arnd, Olof or one of the
other maintainers will pull your tree some time before the next merge
window opens.
Arnd, do we have this documented somewhere for new maintainers to follow?
Cheers,
Joel
On February 14, 2018 6:28:51 PM PST, Joel Stanley [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:52 PM, Joel Stanley [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Hi Brendan,
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 10:27 AM, Brendan Higgins
[off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Add a common device tree for all Nuvoton NPCM750 BMCs and a board
specific device tree for the NPCM750 (Poleg) evaluation board.
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Joel Stanley <joel@jms.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>
This looks well acked, reviewed and tested. How do you plan to have
the ARM SoC maintainers merge your patches?
Following up on an IRC conversation with Brendan:
The process is normally to create a git branch based on on -rc1, apply
your patches, and send them to the ARM maintainers. You then push a
signed tag to a repository somewhere, send a pull request (a git
request-pull email, not a Github PR) and Arnd, Olof or one of the
other maintainers will pull your tree some time before the next merge
window opens.
Arnd, do we have this documented somewhere for new maintainers to
follow?
I would add a few things that we had to go through before for Broadcom SoCs:
- send your pull requests to arm at kernel.org and copy Arnd, Olof and Kevin
- you would want to get your PGP key signed by as many people as people as possible which should not be a problem if you are in an area with lots of kernel people like the Bay Area (which reminds me I should do that)
- if you are going to be reasonably active every cycle consider getting a kernel.org account to host your tree (we are still not doing that...)
- for future pull requests, you might want to break them into e.g: DTS, board/Kconfig, drivers, defconfig, maintainers file, and have as little dependencies between each branch to minimize merge conflicts
- build test and run test your changes against at least one other platform, e.g: QEMU to check for multiplatform issues
In case this is of any value, there is a script here that will automatically generate pull requests emails for you based on branches matching what was mentioned above, it will also take care of CC'ing the people involved in the different patches:
https://github.com/ffainelli/misc-scripts/blob/master/gen-pull.pl
It still requires you to create an appropriate tag for the pull requests, though I might semi-automate that in the future, at least spawn an editor and offer some guidance, based on commit messages as to what should be in the pull request email/tag.
HTH
--
Florian
Arnd, do we have this documented somewhere for new maintainers to
follow?
I would add a few things that we had to go through before for Broadcom SoCs:
- send your pull requests to arm at kernel.org and copy Arnd, Olof and Kevin
- you would want to get your PGP key signed by as many people as people as possible which should not be a problem if you are in an area with lots of kernel people like the Bay Area (which reminds me I should do that)
- if you are going to be reasonably active every cycle consider getting a kernel.org account to host your tree (we are still not doing that...)
- for future pull requests, you might want to break them into e.g: DTS, board/Kconfig, drivers, defconfig, maintainers file, and have as little dependencies between each branch to minimize merge conflicts
- build test and run test your changes against at least one other platform, e.g: QEMU to check for multiplatform issues
In case this is of any value, there is a script here that will automatically generate pull requests emails for you based on branches matching what was mentioned above, it will also take care of CC'ing the people involved in the different patches:
https://github.com/ffainelli/misc-scripts/blob/master/gen-pull.pl
It still requires you to create an appropriate tag for the pull requests, though I might semi-automate that in the future, at least spawn an editor and offer some guidance, based on commit messages as to what should be in the pull request email/tag.
HTH
--
Florian