[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22cb222a-a34d-b2ff-88cf-2e9433aed310@loongson.cn>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:25:38 +0800
From: Zhao Qunqin <zhaoqunqin@...ngson.cn>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: arnd@...db.de, olof@...om.net, soc@...nel.org, soc@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev, xry111@...111.site,
christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 RESEND] soc: loongson: add Loongson Security Module
driver
在 2024/12/28 下午7:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> On 24/12/2024 08:25, Qunqin Zhao wrote:
>> This driver supports Loongson Security Module, which
>> provides the control for it's hardware encryption
>> acceleration child devices.
> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
OK
>> Only ACPI firmware is supported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qunqin Zhao <zhaoqunqin@...ngson.cn>
> I don't get why you are sending this to soc. This is loongson specific
> and is supposed to go via Loongson maintainers.
>
> And why is this a resend?
There are no platform-specific maintainers, So I initially sent the
patch to Arnd,
but didn't receive a response from Arnold, so I resent the patch and added
soc@...nel.org to the mailing list.
>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> - Removed useless memset() in probe.
>> - Cleaned up coding style.
>> - Corrected the spelling.
>>
>> MAINTAINERS | 7 +
>> drivers/soc/loongson/Kconfig | 9 +
>> drivers/soc/loongson/Makefile | 1 +
>> drivers/soc/loongson/loongson_se.c | 523 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> include/soc/loongson/se.h | 135 ++++++++
>
> include/linux/soc/... or just keep it private to the driver. Why this
> has to be exposed to other users?
Looks like include/linux/soc... is more suitable than include/soc/...
This driver is the base of other users, one user will be added in next
revision.
And may I ask which one do you think is more suitable to place this
basic driver under SOC or MFD ?
Thanks.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists