Message ID | 0d05e8b6-c56f-bad7-00c1-44682cedb38f@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | Mainlined, archived |
Commit | f40c0f800f15e9e3566cb39a9eee2855c634eb5f |
Headers | show |
Series | [GIT,PULL] arm64: dts: updates for v5.17 | expand |
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com> wrote: > > Hi Arnd and Olof, > > Please take a look on the below patches for aarch64 based MediaTek boards. > In this round we add support for the mt8183 based Acer Crhomebook 314, as well > as we add support to several SKUs for mt8183 based Chromebooks. > Apart from that we add basic support to the mt7986 in both variants (mt7986a, > mt7986b). The difference between the both SoCs are the pin-controller capabilities. > > Hope you are fine with this pull request. I've pulled both tags, but I have two minor comments: - please put "mediatek" into the subject, that helps when looking at the pull requests with pwclient, which does not show the author by default - I was expecting you to send a branch for the new EN7523 SoC as well. Did that end up not making it in time? Arnd
Hi Arnd, On 20/12/2021 17:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Arnd and Olof, >> >> Please take a look on the below patches for aarch64 based MediaTek boards. >> In this round we add support for the mt8183 based Acer Crhomebook 314, as well >> as we add support to several SKUs for mt8183 based Chromebooks. >> Apart from that we add basic support to the mt7986 in both variants (mt7986a, >> mt7986b). The difference between the both SoCs are the pin-controller capabilities. >> >> Hope you are fine with this pull request. > > I've pulled both tags, but I have two minor comments: > > - please put "mediatek" into the subject, that helps when looking at > the pull requests > with pwclient, which does not show the author by default > I did this pull request with a lot of time pressure and forgot about it. My apologies, I'll try to not forget next time. > - I was expecting you to send a branch for the new EN7523 SoC as well. Did that > end up not making it in time? > As I have seen, in the meantime you reviewed some parts yourself. I took the first two patches in my tree, but we should coordinate for the rest. If you want to take it through the SOC tree or if I should take it through the mediatek tree. As Airoha is a subsidiary of MediaTek, I suppose in the long run, you want it do be part of the Mediatek tree, correct? Regards, Matthias
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matthias Brugger <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20/12/2021 17:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com> wrote: > >> > >> Please take a look on the below patches for aarch64 based MediaTek boards. > >> In this round we add support for the mt8183 based Acer Crhomebook 314, as well > >> as we add support to several SKUs for mt8183 based Chromebooks. > >> Apart from that we add basic support to the mt7986 in both variants (mt7986a, > >> mt7986b). The difference between the both SoCs are the pin-controller capabilities. > >> > >> Hope you are fine with this pull request. > > > > I've pulled both tags, but I have two minor comments: > > > > - please put "mediatek" into the subject, that helps when looking at > > the pull requests > > with pwclient, which does not show the author by default > > > > I did this pull request with a lot of time pressure and forgot about it. My > apologies, I'll try to not forget next time. > > > - I was expecting you to send a branch for the new EN7523 SoC as well. Did that > > end up not making it in time? > > > > As I have seen, in the meantime you reviewed some parts yourself. I took the > first two patches in my tree, but we should coordinate for the rest. If you > want to take it through the SOC tree or if I should take it through the mediatek > tree. As Airoha is a subsidiary of MediaTek, I suppose in the long run, you want > it do be part of the Mediatek tree, correct? I talked to Felix about it last week, I think it would be best if you handle the arch/{arm,arm64}/ bits for Airoha as part of the mach-mediatek and merge changes the same way as the mt76xx, mt69xx and mt81xx series. For the initial submission, of en7623, having a single branch that contains both the arch/* and drivers/* with the appropriate Acks would make the most sense, to avoid spreading it out over multiple merge windows, though it's not too late for 5.17. Arnd
On 30/12/2021 02:40, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:29 AM Matthias Brugger > <matthias.bgg@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 20/12/2021 17:18, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Sat, Dec 18, 2021 at 9:42 AM Matthias Brugger <mbrugger@suse.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Please take a look on the below patches for aarch64 based MediaTek boards. >>>> In this round we add support for the mt8183 based Acer Crhomebook 314, as well >>>> as we add support to several SKUs for mt8183 based Chromebooks. >>>> Apart from that we add basic support to the mt7986 in both variants (mt7986a, >>>> mt7986b). The difference between the both SoCs are the pin-controller capabilities. >>>> >>>> Hope you are fine with this pull request. >>> >>> I've pulled both tags, but I have two minor comments: >>> >>> - please put "mediatek" into the subject, that helps when looking at >>> the pull requests >>> with pwclient, which does not show the author by default >>> >> >> I did this pull request with a lot of time pressure and forgot about it. My >> apologies, I'll try to not forget next time. >> >>> - I was expecting you to send a branch for the new EN7523 SoC as well. Did that >>> end up not making it in time? >>> >> >> As I have seen, in the meantime you reviewed some parts yourself. I took the >> first two patches in my tree, but we should coordinate for the rest. If you >> want to take it through the SOC tree or if I should take it through the mediatek >> tree. As Airoha is a subsidiary of MediaTek, I suppose in the long run, you want >> it do be part of the Mediatek tree, correct? > > I talked to Felix about it last week, I think it would be best if you handle the > arch/{arm,arm64}/ bits for Airoha as part of the mach-mediatek and merge > changes the same way as the mt76xx, mt69xx and mt81xx series. For the > initial submission, of en7623, having a single branch that contains both > the arch/* and drivers/* with the appropriate Acks would make the most > sense, to avoid spreading it out over multiple merge windows, though it's > not too late for 5.17. > Sounds good. Although it's still not clear to me, if you want to take the initial submission or if I should take that. And I understand that it's a typo and we are too late for 5.17 given that we are in v5.16-rc7 already. Anyway I had some comments on the arm bits and we are still lacking the Acked-by for the clock driver. Regards, Matthias