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
