Re: [PATCH v6 00/13] Ambarella CV75 SoC minimal bring-up
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Date: 2026-09-04 06:57:23
Also in:
linux-clk, linux-devicetree, linux-gpio, linux-serial, lkml
On 04/09/2026 08:54, Jerome Brunet wrote:
On ven. 04 sept. 2026 at 14:38, Long Zhao via B4 Relay [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
.../devicetree/bindings/arm/ambarella.yaml | 24 + .../bindings/clock/ambarella,cv75-rct.yaml | 64 ++ .../devicetree/bindings/gpio/pl061-gpio.yaml | 32 +- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mfd/syscon.yaml | 1 + .../bindings/pinctrl/ambarella,cv75-pinctrl.yaml | 239 +++++++ .../bindings/serial/snps-dw-apb-uart.yaml | 1 + .../devicetree/bindings/vendor-prefixes.yaml | 2 + MAINTAINERS | 14 + arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms | 6 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/Makefile | 1 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/ambarella/Makefile | 3 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/ambarella/cv75-evk.dts | 30 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/ambarella/cv75.dtsi | 177 +++++ arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 + drivers/clk/Kconfig | 1 + drivers/clk/Makefile | 1 + drivers/clk/ambarella/Kconfig | 13 + drivers/clk/ambarella/Makefile | 6 + drivers/clk/ambarella/ccu-cv75.c | 296 ++++++++ drivers/clk/ambarella/ccu_common.c | 60 ++ drivers/clk/ambarella/ccu_common.h | 25 + drivers/clk/ambarella/ccu_mux_div.c | 234 +++++++ drivers/clk/ambarella/ccu_mux_div.h | 35 + drivers/clk/ambarella/ccu_pll.c | 421 ++++++++++++ drivers/clk/ambarella/ccu_pll.h | 70 ++ drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 2 + drivers/gpio/gpio-pl061.c | 342 +++++---- drivers/gpio/gpio-regmap.c | 24 +- drivers/pinctrl/Kconfig | 15 + drivers/pinctrl/Makefile | 2 + drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ambarella-cv75.c | 561 +++++++++++++++ drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ambarella.c | 761 +++++++++++++++++++++ drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-ambarella.h | 50 ++ drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_dw.c | 34 + include/dt-bindings/clock/ambarella,cv75-rct.h | 15 + include/linux/amba/bus.h | 1 + include/linux/gpio/regmap.h | 13 + 37 files changed, 3439 insertions(+), 138 deletions(-)That is a lot of stuff mixed into a single series that could easily split
Well, not easily, because each split patchset would rely on non-existing CONFIG which could trigger warnings. Contributors follow here the correct and documented process of new SoC platform, I don't get why now only this patchset has to be split... Best regards, Krzysztof