[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <09411368-cd76-479f-ade3-5a87d3f9be38@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2025 08:38:10 +0100
From: Michal Wilczynski <m.wilczynski@...sung.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org, robh@...nel.org,
krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org, drew@...7.com, guoren@...nel.org,
wefu@...hat.com, jassisinghbrar@...il.com, paul.walmsley@...ive.com,
palmer@...belt.com, aou@...s.berkeley.edu, frank.binns@...tec.com,
matt.coster@...tec.com, maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com,
mripard@...nel.org, tzimmermann@...e.de, airlied@...il.com, simona@...ll.ch,
ulf.hansson@...aro.org, jszhang@...nel.org, p.zabel@...gutronix.de,
m.szyprowski@...sung.com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/21] Enable drm/imagination BXM-4-64 Support for
LicheePi 4A
On 3/3/25 18:43, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 03/03/2025 09:38, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2/21/25 10:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 03:02:18PM +0100, Michal Wilczynski wrote:
>>>> The LicheePi 4A board, featuring the T-HEAD TH1520 SoC, includes an Imagination
>>>> Technologies BXM-4-64 GPU. Initial support for this GPU was provided through a
>>>> downstream driver [1]. Recently, efforts have been made to upstream support for
>>>> the Rogue family GPUs, which the BXM-4-64 is part of [2].
>>>>
>>>> While the initial upstream driver focused on the AXE-1-16 GPU, newer patches
>>>> have introduced support for the BXS-4-64 GPU [3]. The modern upstream
>>>> drm/imagination driver is expected to support the BXM-4-64 as well [4][5]. As
>>>> this support is being developed, it's crucial to upstream the necessary glue
>>>> code including clock and power-domain drivers so they're ready for integration
>>>> with the drm/imagination driver.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is v5 of big patchset which became huge. I understand you did like
>>> that for v1 which was RFC. But it stopped being RFC.
>>>
>>> Split your patchset, keeping versioning and changelog, per subsystem.
>>
>> Sorry for the late reply—I didn't have access to email. I agree with
>> your suggestion and will send the clock changes, firmware/power domain,
>> reset, and drm/imagination updates as separate patchsets for merging.
>
>
> How did you implement above comment? You did the split, right? Where is
> versioning and where are changelogs?
So I thought the sub-series should be versioned independently from v1 ?
Then linked the previous discussions in the cover letter, without
copying them.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists