On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 03:26:08 +0000,
Peter Chen [off-list ref] wrote:

On 25-03-25 10:52:10, Marc Zyngier wrote:

quoted

quoted

+     timer {
+             compatible = "arm,armv8-timer";
+             interrupt-names = "sec-phys", "phys", "virt", "hyp-phys", "hyp-virt";
+             interrupts = <GIC_PPI 13 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW 0>,
+                          <GIC_PPI 14 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW 0>,
+                          <GIC_PPI 11 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW 0>,
+                          <GIC_PPI 10 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW 0>,
+                          <GIC_PPI 12 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_LOW 0>;
+     };
+};

I don't think there is anything wrong here, but it is also a pretty
useless DT. There isn't even a UART to interact with the machine and
find out whether it has actually booted.

UEFI uses the same UART, so we could see all kernel boot logs until
switch to use kernel UART driver for printk. If you would like boot
to the console at initramfs, just add uart node like patchset v1.

What's the point in upstreaming something that requires extra changes
just to boot it? It only outlines these patches are not useful as they
stand.

quoted

I reckon this should be part of the initial DT, as this otherwise
serves little purpose.

Without this initial support, we can't add some base drivers, like
mailbox. The dt_binding_check will report warnings/errors [1].

Of course you can. You just add additional patches to this series,
making it something that is actually useful. So far, this series only
serves as marketing material.

Full UART support depends on clock, clock control needs mailbox
to talk with FW using SCMI protocol.

Then do it. You obviously have existing DT support for it already.

There is no any support for CIX SoC, so we had to add one small step by
step.

No, you are deliberately choosing to make this platform useless.

That's a bit sad, and a waste of everybody's time.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.