On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:34:27PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 04:32:59PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 10:11:17PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 10:48:11PM +0000, Yixun Lan wrote: > > > > Hi Conor > > > > Thanks for bringing this up > > > > > > > > On 19:35 Sun 16 Jun , Conor Dooley wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 01:18:52AM +0800, Yangyu Chen wrote: > > > > > > > > > > No MAINTAINERS update, so I figure that means you don't want to maintain > > > > > it going forwards? If there's someone out that that does care about the > > > > > spacemit k1 (Jesse maybe?), then I'd be more than happy to have them > > > > > look after it. > > > > Yangyu kind of has limited time, too many stuff for him.. > > > > > > > > I'd volunteered to help on this if it can fill the gap > > > > Also I'd be more than happy if anyone willing step forward to co-maintain.. > > > > > > Does maintainership work like this? Is willing to do enough? > > > FWICT, maintainership involves active patch contributing, reviewing and > > > maintaining the whole SoC. It is better to take over the maintainership > > > after showing enough patch contributions and understanding of the SoC. > > > > I was going to reply to your other patch about providing more complete > > "basic" support for the SoC, but I guess I'll reply here and address > > both points. After the k230 and th1520, which were both merged with very > > When I saw k230 a few minutes ago, I assumed you mean k210 since I > didn't found k230 support in linus tree now. After searching the > maillist, I found oh there is a k230 series which is similar to this > series, no pinctrl, no clk, no reset. Since the incomplete K230 initial > series hasn't been merged into Linus tree now, is it possible to drop > it so that we can avoid the same mistake for k230. Yeah, I think you're right there and I should drop the k230 stuff from for-next. I forgot that it was not already in, because I had sent it for 6.10 and Arnd didn't like some of the inter-branch dependencies that my PR had and told me to drop it. If nobody really cares for getting the platform to a reasonably usable state, then I guess we will just not support it. And it seems like there's little interest in it, despite being the first system you could buy with ratified vector. It's not a great platform to work with documentation wise, at least as a non-Chinese speaker like myself nor is the U-Boot M-Mode -> OpenSBI -> Linux vendor boot flow good for iterating on kernels. > > basic support and have made very little progress towards being a useful > > platform, I'm pretty reluctant to merge another platform in a super > > basic state. I was going to make this point before you brought it up, > > but it's good to know I am not the only one with that view. To be clear, > > I'm not pointing blame for those platforms, I'd just like to avoid a > > Yep previously I thought it was fine to use a fixed clock or dummy clock > during the initial patches, but I changed my mind now, especially after > Samuel complained the cv1800b reset dt changes. > > > repeat. If Yangyu doesn't have time to do any development work on the > > platform, I'd like to see someone else (and as I mentioned Jesse is > > interested) take on getting some of the basic driver patches written and > > merge only when those are accepted. Having no in-tree clock and pinctrl > > drivers is definitely a hindrance to other people doing parallel > > development of drivers and I'd like to avoid that. > > > > Getting back to your point in this mail, whoever gets the platform to > > that state is well suited to looking after it going forwards. Some other > > The person who can bring the platfrom support to a well-moduled state, > IE, proper clk, pinctrl, reset drivers shows the passion, the code > contribution and solid understanding of the SoC, sure he/she is > definitely suited to maintain the SoC. I just don't think it's > a good practice a person can became maintainer even w/o one LoC > contrubition to the SoC, because IMHO code contribution matters > for maintainership. Right, and the th1520 is suffering a bit from that at the moment, the maintainers other than yourself haven't sent a single LoC for it, and have not gotten involved after you have become unable to spend time on it. I do know that things are likely to change there soon, which is good. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
