linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] arm64: dts: cix: add initial CIX P1(SKY1) dts support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <faa1d8e7-e882-40ea-b64d-2e139121bc38@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:29:19 +0100
From: "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@...db.de>
To: "Peter Chen" <peter.chen@...tech.com>
Cc: "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzk@...nel.org>, "Marc Zyngier" <maz@...nel.org>,
 soc@...nel.org, "Rob Herring" <robh@...nel.org>, krzk+dt@...nel.org,
 "Conor Dooley" <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
 "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas@....com>, "Will Deacon" <will@...nel.org>,
 linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, cix-kernel-upstream@...tech.com,
 marcin@...zkiewicz.com.pl, kajetan.puchalski@....com,
 "Krzysztof Kozlowski" <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
 "Fugang . duan" <fugang.duan@...tech.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 5/6] arm64: dts: cix: add initial CIX P1(SKY1) dts support

On Thu, Mar 27, 2025, at 10:31, Peter Chen wrote:
> On 25-03-27 09:18:42, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> Agreed. The usual arrangement for a new SoC family is to have
>> the minimum set of drivers (uart, clk, pinctrl, regulator,
>> iommu, irqchip) along with the DT bindings and the dts files
>> in one branch and have that go through the SoC tree as part of
>> the soc/newsoc branch. It sounds like in this case we only need
>> uart and a mailbox since the rest are shared with existing
>> firmware based drivers, so this isn't even the worst case
>> but still requires some coordination between subsystem maintainers
>> to ensure that all patches have been properly reviewed before
>> I merge them.
>
> So, in this case, we should add mailbox driver support in this
> series, and once the mailbox maintainer has reviewed mailbox
> driver, all the patches could go your tree?

Yes, exactly. Just make sure you describe this in the submission
for the mailbox driver to make sure everyone understands the
plan. I don't think we've had a mailbox driver as the critical
path for a new platform before, so they would usually go through
the mailbox subsystem tree.

     Arnd