| Message ID | 20211227112959.7325-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [GIT,PULL] arm64: dts: samsung: Second pull for v5.17 | expand |
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > > The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: > > dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 > > for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: > > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two > > Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sam Protsenko (2): > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support > Hi Krzysztof, Do you know if this series is going to land in v5.17? The prediction (by phb-crystal-ball) is that MW closes on 23 Jan. I can see those patches in soc/for-next [1], but want to be sure those are scheduled for v5.17. Thanks! [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/soc/soc.git/log/?h=for-next
On 19/01/2022 15:35, Sam Protsenko wrote: > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> >> >> The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: >> >> dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) >> >> are available in the Git repository at: >> >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 >> >> for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: >> >> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two >> >> Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Sam Protsenko (2): >> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support >> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support >> > > Hi Krzysztof, > > Do you know if this series is going to land in v5.17? I don't know, did not check. > The prediction > (by phb-crystal-ball) is that MW closes on 23 Jan. I can see those > patches in soc/for-next [1], but want to be sure those are scheduled > for v5.17. I don't get how can you be sure that they will be in v5.17. If they are not going to be pulled - what can you do? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 16:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 19/01/2022 15:35, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Krzysztof > >> > >> > >> The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: > >> > >> dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) > >> > >> are available in the Git repository at: > >> > >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 > >> > >> for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: > >> > >> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two > >> > >> Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Sam Protsenko (2): > >> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support > >> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support > >> > > > > Hi Krzysztof, > > > > Do you know if this series is going to land in v5.17? > > I don't know, did not check. > > > The prediction > > (by phb-crystal-ball) is that MW closes on 23 Jan. I can see those > > patches in soc/for-next [1], but want to be sure those are scheduled > > for v5.17. > > I don't get how can you be sure that they will be in v5.17. If they are > not going to be pulled - what can you do? > I can't. Just haven't seen corresponding pull request to mainline tree on ML yet, thought you may know something. Basically I just don't want those patches to be lost accidentally. And of course it'd nice to see those in v5.17. Anyway, that question should've been probably directed to Olof and Arnd, sorry for disturbing. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > > The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: > > dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 > > for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: > > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two > > Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sam Protsenko (2): > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support > Hi Olof, Arnd, Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. > arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-e850-96.dts | 195 ++++++ > arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-pinctrl.dtsi | 643 ++++++++++++++++++ > arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850.dtsi | 759 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 4 files changed, 1598 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-e850-96.dts > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-pinctrl.dtsi > create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850.dtsi
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > Hi Olof, Arnd, > > Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in > v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in the soc tree, so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the contents (anything I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended up in the "late" branch. As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen no indication of any problems so far. Arnd
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko > <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Olof, Arnd, > > > > Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in > > v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. > > I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in > the soc tree, > so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. Yep, will be sent up today most likely. > With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the > contents (anything > I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended > up in the "late" branch. > > As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen > no indication of any problems so far. Correct. Been sitting on it for a while in case there were fixes coming in for the first pieces that got merged, but in traditional fashion I'm guessing those will start to show up a few days after the late branch gets merged. :) -Olof
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 17:53, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko > > <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Olof, Arnd, > > > > > > Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in > > > v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. > > > > I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in > > the soc tree, > > so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. > > Yep, will be sent up today most likely. > > > With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the > > contents (anything > > I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended > > up in the "late" branch. > > > > As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen > > no indication of any problems so far. > > Correct. Been sitting on it for a while in case there were fixes > coming in for the first pieces that got merged, but in traditional > fashion I'm guessing those will start to show up a few days after the > late branch gets merged. :) Actually I have such, but to prepare a pull with them, I would need to base it on some random Linus' commit, not on v5.17-rc1. Therefore I wait for v5.17-rc1. Would you prefer different approach? Best regards, Krzysztof
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 9:01 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 17:53, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko > > > <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Olof, Arnd, > > > > > > > > Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in > > > > v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. > > > > > > I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in > > > the soc tree, > > > so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. > > > > Yep, will be sent up today most likely. > > > > > With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the > > > contents (anything > > > I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended > > > up in the "late" branch. > > > > > > As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen > > > no indication of any problems so far. > > > > Correct. Been sitting on it for a while in case there were fixes > > coming in for the first pieces that got merged, but in traditional > > fashion I'm guessing those will start to show up a few days after the > > late branch gets merged. :) > > Actually I have such, but to prepare a pull with them, I would need to > base it on some random Linus' commit, not on v5.17-rc1. Therefore I > wait for v5.17-rc1. Would you prefer different approach? If needed you can base it on Linus' last merge commit of arm-soc contents for the first set of fixes (or your topic branch that you sent the code up on), but it's also OK to wait if they're minor bugs/fixes. -Olof
On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 18:53, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko > > <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Olof, Arnd, > > > > > > Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in > > > v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. > > > > I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in > > the soc tree, > > so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. > > Yep, will be sent up today most likely. > Thanks for detailed answer! Glad to hear it's still a possibility. Please let me know if you need any actions on my side (like rebasing, etc). > > With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the > > contents (anything > > I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended > > up in the "late" branch. > > > > As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen > > no indication of any problems so far. > > Correct. Been sitting on it for a while in case there were fixes > coming in for the first pieces that got merged, but in traditional > fashion I'm guessing those will start to show up a few days after the > late branch gets merged. :) > > > -Olof
On 22/01/2022 13:38, Sam Protsenko wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 18:53, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko >>> <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Olof, Arnd, >>>> >>>> Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in >>>> v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. >>> >>> I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in >>> the soc tree, >>> so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. >> >> Yep, will be sent up today most likely. >> > > Thanks for detailed answer! Glad to hear it's still a possibility. > Please let me know if you need any actions on my side (like rebasing, > etc). > >>> With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the >>> contents (anything >>> I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended >>> up in the "late" branch. >>> >>> As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen >>> no indication of any problems so far. >> >> Correct. Been sitting on it for a while in case there were fixes >> coming in for the first pieces that got merged, but in traditional >> fashion I'm guessing those will start to show up a few days after the >> late branch gets merged. :) Olof, v5.17-rc1 came earlier, so I see this part did not make into it. Is there a chance for a past-rc1 pull to Linus with it? Sam, Anyway the patches wont' get lost (you mentioned such worry in previous email to me). They might just need to wait. Unfortunately if patch, especially with new feature, is coming in the end of cycle, there is a risk it won't make it. The patches have to wait a few days in my trees before I send them to Arnd/Olof, so if the patch is coming after rc6, I can push it to Arnd/Olof around rc7, you see there is very little time. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 21:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 22/01/2022 13:38, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 18:53, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko > >>> <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Olof, Arnd, > >>>> > >>>> Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in > >>>> v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. > >>> > >>> I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in > >>> the soc tree, > >>> so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. > >> > >> Yep, will be sent up today most likely. > >> > > > > Thanks for detailed answer! Glad to hear it's still a possibility. > > Please let me know if you need any actions on my side (like rebasing, > > etc). > > > >>> With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the > >>> contents (anything > >>> I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended > >>> up in the "late" branch. > >>> > >>> As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen > >>> no indication of any problems so far. > >> > >> Correct. Been sitting on it for a while in case there were fixes > >> coming in for the first pieces that got merged, but in traditional > >> fashion I'm guessing those will start to show up a few days after the > >> late branch gets merged. :) > > Olof, > v5.17-rc1 came earlier, so I see this part did not make into it. Is > there a chance for a past-rc1 pull to Linus with it? > > Sam, > Anyway the patches wont' get lost (you mentioned such worry in previous > email to me). They might just need to wait. Unfortunately if patch, > especially with new feature, is coming in the end of cycle, there is a > risk it won't make it. The patches have to wait a few days in my trees > before I send them to Arnd/Olof, so if the patch is coming after rc6, I > can push it to Arnd/Olof around rc7, you see there is very little time. > Should I send the patch fixing hard-coded clock numbers though? I remember you said I should send it once -rc1 is out. But now that dts patches are not merged in mainline, I'm not sure it can still be applied? > Best regards, > Krzysztof
On 24/01/2022 14:50, Sam Protsenko wrote: > On Sun, 23 Jan 2022 at 21:27, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: >> >> On 22/01/2022 13:38, Sam Protsenko wrote: >>> On Wed, 19 Jan 2022 at 18:53, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 8:07 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 4:11 PM Sam Protsenko >>>>> <semen.protsenko@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 at 13:30, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Olof, Arnd, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just want to check if it's possible for those patches to be applied in >>>>>> v5.17? Sorry for the noise, but that's important to me. >>>>> >>>>> I can see that Olof merged merged this into the "arm/late" branch in >>>>> the soc tree, >>>>> so I assume he still plans to send it in the next few days. >>>> >>>> Yep, will be sent up today most likely. >>>> >>> >>> Thanks for detailed answer! Glad to hear it's still a possibility. >>> Please let me know if you need any actions on my side (like rebasing, >>> etc). >>> >>>>> With the timing over Christmas, I sent out the large bulk of the >>>>> contents (anything >>>>> I merged before Dec 23) last year, and Linus already merged it, the rest ended >>>>> up in the "late" branch. >>>>> >>>>> As usual, there is no guarantee that late changes make it in, but I have seen >>>>> no indication of any problems so far. >>>> >>>> Correct. Been sitting on it for a while in case there were fixes >>>> coming in for the first pieces that got merged, but in traditional >>>> fashion I'm guessing those will start to show up a few days after the >>>> late branch gets merged. :) >> >> Olof, >> v5.17-rc1 came earlier, so I see this part did not make into it. Is >> there a chance for a past-rc1 pull to Linus with it? >> >> Sam, >> Anyway the patches wont' get lost (you mentioned such worry in previous >> email to me). They might just need to wait. Unfortunately if patch, >> especially with new feature, is coming in the end of cycle, there is a >> risk it won't make it. The patches have to wait a few days in my trees >> before I send them to Arnd/Olof, so if the patch is coming after rc6, I >> can push it to Arnd/Olof around rc7, you see there is very little time. >> > > Should I send the patch fixing hard-coded clock numbers though? I > remember you said I should send it once -rc1 is out. But now that dts > patches are not merged in mainline, I'm not sure it can still be > applied? Yeah, please wait. We have few patches following that pull-request, so it will be actually easier not to merge it to soc-tree but resend soon with the follow-ups. Best regards, Krzysztof
On 27/12/2021 12:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Hi, > > Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > > The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: > > dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) > > are available in the Git repository at: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 > > for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: > > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two > > Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Sam Protsenko (2): > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support > I'll send all this as v5.18 material, so this pull-req can be skipped. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 27/12/2021 12:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. > > > > Best regards, > > Krzysztof > > > > > > The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: > > > > dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) > > > > are available in the Git repository at: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 > > > > for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: > > > > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two > > > > Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Sam Protsenko (2): > > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support > > arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support > > > > I'll send all this as v5.18 material, so this pull-req can be skipped. > Krzysztof, As clock changes are merged in mainline now, do you want me to re-send those two dts patches using corresponding clock constants, instead of hard-coded numbers? > > Best regards, > Krzysztof
On 27/01/2022 17:58, Sam Protsenko wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski > <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: >> >> On 27/12/2021 12:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Krzysztof >>> >>> >>> The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: >>> >>> dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) >>> >>> are available in the Git repository at: >>> >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 >>> >>> for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: >>> >>> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two >>> >>> Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Sam Protsenko (2): >>> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support >>> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support >>> >> >> I'll send all this as v5.18 material, so this pull-req can be skipped. >> > > Krzysztof, > > As clock changes are merged in mainline now, do you want me to re-send > those two dts patches using corresponding clock constants, instead of > hard-coded numbers? Yes, please. Best regards, Krzysztof
On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 at 09:46, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 27/01/2022 17:58, Sam Protsenko wrote: > > On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 11:33, Krzysztof Kozlowski > > <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 27/12/2021 12:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Krzysztof > >>> > >>> > >>> The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: > >>> > >>> dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) > >>> > >>> are available in the Git repository at: > >>> > >>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 > >>> > >>> for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: > >>> > >>> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two > >>> > >>> Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Sam Protsenko (2): > >>> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support > >>> arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support > >>> > >> > >> I'll send all this as v5.18 material, so this pull-req can be skipped. > >> > > > > Krzysztof, > > > > As clock changes are merged in mainline now, do you want me to re-send > > those two dts patches using corresponding clock constants, instead of > > hard-coded numbers? > > Yes, please. > Sent out v6. Please check notes in [0/2], if something is not right, just let me know. Thanks! > Best regards, > Krzysztof
Hi, Second pull with DTS for ARM64, on top of previous pull. Best regards, Krzysztof The following changes since commit 51b1a5729469cef57a3c97aa014aa6e1d2b8d864: dt-bindings: pinctrl: samsung: Add pin drive definitions for Exynos850 (2021-12-20 10:35:32 +0100) are available in the Git repository at: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/krzk/linux.git tags/samsung-dt64-5.17-2 for you to fetch changes up to a1828d772e0738c30a383a7d335aded2f2baf908: arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support (2021-12-22 12:31:13 +0100) ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samsung DTS ARM64 changes for v5.17, part two Add initial Exynos850 support and WinLink E850-96 board using it. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sam Protsenko (2): arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial Exynos850 SoC support arm64: dts: exynos: Add initial E850-96 board support arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/Makefile | 1 + arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-e850-96.dts | 195 ++++++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-pinctrl.dtsi | 643 ++++++++++++++++++ arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850.dtsi | 759 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 4 files changed, 1598 insertions(+) create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-e850-96.dts create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850-pinctrl.dtsi create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/exynos/exynos850.dtsi