linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/9] arm64: introduce Black Sesame Technologies C1200 SoC and CDCU1.0 board

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: <20250925121155.2401934-1-yangzh0906@thundersoft.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 20:11:54 +0800
From: Albert Yang <yangzh0906@...ndersoft.com>
To: arnd@...db.de
Cc: adrian.hunter@...el.com,
	bst-upstream@...ai.top,
	catalin.marinas@....com,
	conor+dt@...nel.org,
	devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	gordon.ge@....ai,
	krzk+dt@...nel.org,
	krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org,
	robh@...nel.org,
	ulf.hansson@...aro.org,
	will@...nel.org,
	yangzh0906@...ndersoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] arm64: introduce Black Sesame Technologies C1200 SoC and CDCU1.0 board

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 05:03:57PM +0800, Albert Yang wrote:Subject: Re: [PATCH] splitting SoC and MMC parts

Hi Arnd,

I may have missed an important detail in my previous note. If I split
out the MMC-related patches and submit only the SoC parts first, I
cannot validate the SoC on real hardware: both the kernel and the root
filesystem live on the MMC device. Without the MMC stack (DT bindings
and the controller driver), the board does not boot to userspace, so I
cannot properly verify the SoC/DT changes in isolation.

Would you prefer that I:
- keep the MMC pieces in the same series for initial bring-up; or
- validate everything locally, then send only the SoC/DT parts first and
  follow up with the MMC binding/driver as a separate series?

I’m not entirely sure which approach best matches the normal workflow,
so your guidance would be appreciated. I can proceed whichever way you
think is most appropriate.

Thanks for the review and suggestions.

Best regards,
Albert