Re: [PATCH v11 0/3] Add basic SoC support for mediatek mt8195

[Tinghan Shen]

Hi Macpaul,

On Thu, 2022-02-17 at 14:24 +0800, Macpaul Lin wrote:
> On 2/16/22 7:31 PM, Tinghan Shen wrote:
> > This series adds basic SoC support for Mediatek's SoC MT8195.
> > 
> > ---
> > Changes in v11:
> >    - rebase on 5.17-rc4
> > Changes in v10:
> >    - clean CC list
> > Changes in v9:
> >    - remove duplicated cpus dt-bindings patch in v8
> > Changes in v8:
> >    - v7 mediatek,spi-mtk-nor.yaml patch is applied in branch for-5.17 at
> >      kernel/git/broonie/spi.git
> >    - v7 pinctrl-mt8195.yaml patch is applied in branch for-next at
> >      kernel/git/linusw/linux-pinctrl.git
> >    - add cortex-a78 compatible to cpus dt-bindings
> >    - add mediatek,drive-strength-adv property to pinctrl dt-bindings
> >    - fix evb dts
> >      - remove i2c nodes with disabled status from dts
> >      - fix pin properties not match pinctrl dt-bindings
> >      - remove unnecessary u3port*
> >    - fix dtsi
> >      - fix node format
> >      - reorder oscillator* nodes
> >      - fix node name of cpu idle nodes
> >      - remove clock-frequency property in the timer node
> >      - reorder clock and clock names in usb nodes
> > Changes in v7:
> >    - refine title of spi-nor dt-bindings patch
> >    - refine commit message of pinctrl dt-bindings patch
> >    - update pinctrl-mt8195.yaml
> >      - change property pattern from 'pins' to '^pins'
> >      - update examples with new property in descriptions
> >      - add new example
> >    - drop '_' from node names of pinctrl subnodes in mt8195-evb.dts
> > Changes in v6:
> >    - rebase on 5.16-rc1
> >    - add new clock name to spi-nor dt-bindings
> >    - add "pins" property in pinctrl dt-bindings
> >    - fix fails of dtbs_checks
> >      - remove "arm,armv8" not matched in yaml from cpu compatile
> >      - fix node name of xhci
> >      - remvoe xhci upstreaming wakeup properties
> >      - remove xhci unused properties address-cells and size-cells
> >      - fix node name of ufs-phy
> >      - fix node name of spi-nor
> >      - fix node name and sub-nodes of pinctrl
> >      - fix mmc compatible
> > Changes in v5:
> >    - enable basic nodes in mt8195-evb.dts
> >    - remove dedicated clock nodes
> >    - add mmc2 node
> >    - fix interrupt number of pinctrl node
> >    - update clock nodes to apply internal fixes
> >    - add dt-bindings for perficfg node
> > 
> > v4 thread:
> > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210922093303.23720-2-seiya.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!xv2H7ZXYIUG7YY1R5OuFgbvDxyfaE6dkkD5H_PciKAZAb5jk-uThgSgItGuvt2d6gCs$
> > v3 thread:
> > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210601075350.31515-2-seiya.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!xv2H7ZXYIUG7YY1R5OuFgbvDxyfaE6dkkD5H_PciKAZAb5jk-uThgSgItGuvgIQSNYo$
> > v2 thread:
> > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210319023427.16711-10-seiya.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!xv2H7ZXYIUG7YY1R5OuFgbvDxyfaE6dkkD5H_PciKAZAb5jk-uThgSgItGuvBx50AeU$
> > v1 thread:
> > 
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210316111443.3332-11-seiya.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxx/__;!!CTRNKA9wMg0ARbw!xv2H7ZXYIUG7YY1R5OuFgbvDxyfaE6dkkD5H_PciKAZAb5jk-uThgSgItGuvpH_NtEY$
> > ---
> > 
> > Tinghan Shen (3):
> >    dt-bindings: arm: mediatek: Add mt8195 pericfg compatible
> >    dt-bindings: pinctrl: mt8195: Add mediatek,drive-strength-adv property
> >    arm64: dts: Add mediatek SoC mt8195 and evaluation board
> > 
> >   .../arm/mediatek/mediatek,pericfg.yaml        |    1 +
> >   .../bindings/pinctrl/pinctrl-mt8195.yaml      |   35 +
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/Makefile         |    1 +
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195-evb.dts   |  161 +++
> >   arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195.dtsi      | 1049 +++++++++++++++++
> >   5 files changed, 1247 insertions(+)
> >   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195-evb.dts
> >   create mode 100644 arch/arm64/boot/dts/mediatek/mt8195.dtsi
> > 
> 
> Just trying to clarify something.
> Dear Tinghan, is there any "lines of code" changed between v10 and v11  
> due to the rebase? Is that you just updated the parent commit hash for  
> rebasing this patchset to 5.17-rc4? I've just get confused if v10 and  
> v11 are duplicated then should we need to review the patch again in detail?
> 
> Thanks.
> Macpaul Lin

Thanks for your review.

There's no change introduced after rebase v10 to 5.17-rc4.

v11 and v10 are the same.


Best regards,
TingHan