On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Jon Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 04:36:45PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm not sure what the strategy behind your cc:ing on this patch set
>> is. I only got a couple of them in my inbox, and this one wasn't one
>> of them. :)
>
> I sent them to the people listed as maintainers in get_maintainer.pl.
> It didn't seem to include you in all of them, but I thought the
> mailing list would be enough of a catch all. My apologies. I'll CC
> everyone listed as a maintainer on all of the patches in the future.
No worries. Just pointing it out since you asked me to look at the
patches and, well, I hadn't received them all. :)
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jon Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Add a very minimalistic set of Northstar Plus Device Tree files which
>> > describes the SoC and the BCM958625 implementation. The perpherials
>> > described are:
>> >
>> > ARM Cortex A9 CPU
>> > 2 8250 UARTs
>> > ARM GIC
>> > PL310 L2 Cache
>> > ARM A9 Global timer
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jon Mason <jonmason@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Kapil Hali <kapilh@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Reviewed-by: Ray Jui <rjui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Seeing reviewed-by already attached to a v1 of a patchset has limited
>> value for someone on the outside.
>>
>> Reviewed-by is one of those tags that has a value that's mostly
>> dependent on who it comes from. By not actually seeing the review and
>> the feedback provided (and revisions made), less data is provided to
>> tell if it's a valuable review or not.
>>
>> Also, if you're posting the code you should probably have your name
>> below Kapil's, since you're the one signing off the origin of the
>> code. See Documentation/SubmittingPatches.txt for details on what
>> S-o-b actually means.
>
> We worked on it together, but I'll be happy to reorder as you suggest.
>
>>
>>
>> > --- /dev/null
>> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-nsp.dtsi
>> > @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
>> > +/*
>> > + * BSD LICENSE
>> > + *
>> > + * Copyright(c) 2015 Broadcom Corporation. All rights reserved.
>> > + *
>> > + * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> > + * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>> > + * are met:
>> > + *
>> > + * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
>> > + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>> > + * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> > + * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in
>> > + * the documentation and/or other materials provided with the
>> > + * distribution.
>> > + * * Neither the name of Broadcom Corporation nor the names of its
>> > + * contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived
>> > + * from this software without specific prior written permission.
>> > + *
>> > + * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS
>> > + * "AS IS" AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> > + * LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR
>> > + * A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT
>> > + * OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
>> > + * SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT
>> > + * LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
>> > + * DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
>> > + * THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> > + * (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE
>> > + * OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>> > + */
>>
>> I'm not sure we've seen BSD-only submissions before. I'll let DT
>> maintainers (or Ian) speak up in case this would cause problems.
>
> I was following the precedent in arch/arm/boot/dts/bcm-cygnus.dtsi.
> If this is preferred to be GPL v2, then I will happily comply.
No, we'd rather have BSD-only than GPL-only, so keeping it as it is
should be OK.
>> > + chosen {
>> > + stdout-path = "serial0:115200n8";
>> > + };
>>
>> No way to mount a root filesystem yet? How much work remains for that
>> to be possible, and what's the plan for that?
>
> It mounts rootfs. I am adding the rootfs to the kernel and device
> tree blob via the u-boot mkimage command. It boots all the way to
> shell without issue.
Sure, any system with memory can use ramdisk for root, that's not what I meant.
Still, based on post from Scott it sounds like NAND support isn't far away.
-Olof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
