On 07/09/20 7:44 pm, Nishanth Menon wrote: > On 17:32-20200907, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 27/08/20 12:21 pm, Lokesh Vutla wrote: >>> This series adds initial support for latest new SoC, J7200, from Texas Instruments. >>> >>> The J7200 SoC is a part of the K3 Multicore SoC architecture platform. >>> It is targeted for for automotive gateway, vehicle compute systems, >>> Vehicle-to-Vehicle (V2V) and Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X) applications. >>> The SoC aims to meet the complex processing needs of modern embedded products. >>> >>> See J7200 Technical Reference Manual (SPRUIU1, June 2020) >>> for further details: https://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruiu1 >>> >>> Changes since v1: >>> - Swapped Patch 1 and 2 as suggested by Nishanth. >>> - Added description for each SoC in yaml bindings. >>> >>> Testing: >>> - ./scripts/checkpatch --strict >>> - Few warningns about Line length exceeding 100 columns. >>> But these are corresponding to comments >>> - v8make dtbs_check >>> - DT_SCHEMA_FLAGS="-u" >>> DT_SCHEMA_FILES="Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/ti/k3.yaml" >>> v8make dtbs_check >>> - DT_SCHEMA_FLAGS="-u" >>> DT_SCHEMA_FILES="Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/ti/k3.yaml" >>> v8make dt_binding_check >> >> This series has been lying around for soo long with no major comments. It will >> be nice to get this merged. I understand we are waiting for Acks on yaml >> documentation but it would be bad to miss a merge window for a new platform >> because we are waiting for Acks on yaml conversion. > > I do require Rob / DT maintainer to ack the DT yaml conversion and the > j7200 binding addition. > > Besides yaml and compatibility acks, there are a few ancillary > comments to fix up.. Kconfig -> I think we should either stay with > status quo and create a new config option per SoC OR rename the > config to be generic (using j7200 with j721e SoC config is not very Please suggest your preference here. I guess separate defconfig for J7200? > consistent). In addition, around the stuff that is going to next in > parallel, the dts is generating additional warnings as well (DSS hmm..there is no DSS being added in this series. There is one checkpatch warning for PATCH 1: WARNING: DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch. See: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.rst This can be ignored. > etc). I think it might be easier if we wait for DT maintainer ack on > bindings prior to giving further cosmetic comments (To allow for any > additional changes to come in to -next). > okay. Thanks and regards, Lokesh
