On 5.09.2024 7:08 AM, Jingyi Wang wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 9/4/2024 6:19 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 04/09/2024 11:34, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 04/09/2024 10:33, Jingyi Wang wrote: >>>> Add initial support for QCS8300 SoC and QCS8300 RIDE board. >>>> >>>> This revision brings support for: >>>> - CPUs with cpu idle >>>> - interrupt-controller with PDC wakeup support >>>> - gcc >>>> - TLMM >>>> - interconnect >>>> - qup with uart >>>> - smmu >>>> - pmic >>>> - ufs >>>> - ipcc >>>> - sram >>>> - remoteprocs including ADSP,CDSP and GPDSP >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <quic_jingyw@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> patch series organized as: >>>> - 1-2: remoteproc binding and driver >>>> - 3-5: ufs binding and driver >>>> - 6-7: rpmhpd binding and driver >>>> - 8-15: bindings for other components found on the SoC >>> >>> Limit your CC list. I found like 8 unnecessary addresses for already >>> huge Cc list. Or organize your patches per subsystem, as we usually expect. >>> >>>> - 16-19: changes to support the device tree >>>> >>>> dependencies: >>>> tlmm: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20240819064933.1778204-1-quic_jingyw@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> gcc: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240820-qcs8300-gcc-v1-0-d81720517a82@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>>> interconnect: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20240827151622.305-1-quic_rlaggysh@xxxxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> Why? UFS cannot depend on pinctrl for example. >>> >>> This blocks testing and merging. >>> >>> Please organize properly (so decouple) your patches, so that there is no >>> fake dependency. >> >> Let me also add here one more thought. That's like fourth or fifth >> QCS/SA patchset last two weeks from Qualcomm and they repeat the same >> mistakes. Not correctly organized, huge cc list, same problems with >> bindings or drivers. >> >> I am giving much more comments to fix than review/ack tags. >> >> I am not going to review this. I will also slow down with reviewing >> other Qualcomm patches. Why? Because you post simultaneously, apparently >> you do not learn from other review, so I have to keep repeating the same. >> >> I am overwhelmed with this, so please expect two week review time from me. >> >> Best regards, >> Krzysztof >> > The CC list is generated from B4 tool, however, thanks for your advice and we > will decouple the changes to avoid this. And could you please help us to confirm > the better way to handle binding changes which just add one compatible, should > it be submitted as a single patch or submmitted together with dts patch series? The tool did its job here, it's just that this series is very long and a ton of people ended up being involved due to bindings oneliners Konrad
