On 2021-01-20 14:54, Heiko Stübner wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 20. Januar 2021, 15:16:25 CET schrieb Rob Herring:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 12:40 PM Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2021-01-19 15:11, Johan Jonker wrote:
Hi Simon, Heiko,
On 1/19/21 2:14 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
Hi Johan,
Am Dienstag, 19. Januar 2021, 14:07:41 CET schrieb Johan Jonker:
Hi Simon,
Thank you for this patch for rk3568 pcie.
Include the Rockchip device tree maintainer and all other people/lists
to the CC list.
./scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict <patch1> <patch2>
./scripts/get_maintainer.pl --noroles --norolestats --nogit-fallback
--nogit <patch1> <patch2>
git send-email --suppress-cc all --dry-run --annotate --to
heiko@xxxxxxxxx --cc <..> <patch1> <patch2>
This SoC has no support in mainline linux kernel yet.
In all the following yaml documents for rk3568 we need headers with
defines for clocks and power domains, etc.
For example:
#include <dt-bindings/clock/rk3568-cru.h>
#include <dt-bindings/power/rk3568-power.h>
Could Rockchip submit first clocks and power drivers entries and a basic
rk3568.dtsi + evb dts?
Include a patch to this serie with 3 pcie nodes added to rk3568.dtsi.
A dtbs_check only works with a complete dtsi and evb dts.
make ARCH=arm64 dtbs_check
DT_SCHEMA_FILES=Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rockchip-dw-pcie.yaml
On 1/18/21 10:17 AM, Simon Xue wrote:
Signed-off-by: Simon Xue <xxm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
.../bindings/pci/rockchip-dw-pcie.yaml | 101 ++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 101 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rockchip-dw-pcie.yaml
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rockchip-dw-pcie.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rockchip-dw-pcie.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..fa664cfffb29
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/pci/rockchip-dw-pcie.yaml
@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
+%YAML 1.2
+---
+$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/pci/rockchip-dw-pcie.yaml#
+$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
+
+title: DesignWare based PCIe RC controller on Rockchip SoCs
+
+maintainers:
+ - Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ - Simon Xue <xxm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
maintainers:
- Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx>
Add only people with maintainer rights.
I'd disagree on this ;-)
All roads leads to Heiko... ;)
It takes long term commitment.
Year in, year out.
Keeping yourself up to date with the latest pcei development.
Communicate in English.
Be able to submit patches without errors... ;)
Review other peoples patches.
Respond in short time.
Bug fixing.
Crikey, it's only a DT binding... :/
If that's what you really want, then you must include a patch to this
serie for MAINTAINERS.
I think if Bjorn and Lorenzo want a specifically named sub-maintainer
for the driver itself, we can let them say so rather than presume.
For the binding it's my call. :)
This should be someone who cares and knows the h/w. IOW, if I want to
delete the binding, someone who will object.
Of course, I'd like that someone to have all the above qualities too.
I guess that would be separate entites then ...
Yup, that's the point I was trying to clarify - binding maintainer and
driver maintainer are technically distinct roles. Of course if someone
is a driver maintainer then it's usual - and preferable - for them to
maintain the relevant bindings as well, so MAINTAINERS entries for
drivers typically also cover those for convenience and pre-schema
historical reasons. However, someone can take responsibility for a
binding without signing up to explicitly maintain a corresponding driver
(I know I have), and in that case the schema makes the binding
self-documenting already - we don't have MAINTAINERS entries that *only*
cover bindings, other than the top-level one that says Rob's in charge
overall :)
Robin.
Shawn and Simon know the hardware way better, though I'm not sure if their
work commitments will allow them to keep track of binding deletions
So maybe all 3 of us ;-)
Heiko
