[PATCH v5 0/2] riscv: sophgo: Add pinctrl support for CV1800 series SoC

[Conor Dooley]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 06:43:31AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 08:11:15PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 06:25:49AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 05:13:43PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 06:24:34AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2024 at 03:41:10PM GMT, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > > > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2024 at 06:38:40AM +0800, Inochi Amaoto wrote:
> > > > > > > Add basic pinctrl driver for Sophgo CV1800 series SoCs.
> > > > > > > This patch series aims to replace the previous patch from Jisheng [1].
> > > > > > > Since the pinctrl of cv1800 has nested mux and its pin definination
> > > > > > > is discrete, it is not suitable to use "pinctrl-single" to cover the
> > > > > > > pinctrl device.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This patch require another patch [2] that provides standard attribute
> > > > > > > "input-schmitt-microvolt"
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The v4 version is from [3]
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Which version of this ended up in linux-next? I see a link to v4 in
> > > > > > what's been applied, but this v5 was sent before that code was
> > > > > > committed.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Either way, what's been applied and what's here produce warnings:
> > > > > > cv1812h.dtsi:19.28-24.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /soc/pinctrl at 3008000: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "3001000"
> > > > > > cv1800b.dtsi:18.28-23.5: Warning (simple_bus_reg): /soc/pinctrl at 3008000: simple-bus unit address format error, expected "3001000"
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It's just a copy-paste error I would imagine, but please send a fix.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yes, it is like some copy-paste error, I will fix it.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd rather you had sent some follow-up patches, than rebase your tree at
> > > > this point in the cycle. I assume you hadn't yet sent that stuff in a PR
> > > > to Arnd?
> > > > 
> > > Yes, the pinctrl dts needs binding header, which is taken by Linus.
> > > So we hadn't sent them. This is why I sent a new version to fix this.
> > 
> > Oh, I'm surprised that you didn't get a shared branch from him for that
> > to be honest.
> 
> He did provide a shared branch, but I am not sure the right way to use 
> it. He said it is used for SoC tree to pull it. So I think it is just 
> used as dependency. Is it OK to just mention it in the PR and add the 
> pinctrl dts? Or need some other git tags to tell the dependency?

It's a bit late now to be adding stuff for 6.12, but for next time what
you do is git pull the tag he gave you here
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CACRpkdZ5zAgQyo9y_nO8M0Z6b8zqbkg5H_3ceEJN6z6mHL4TOQ@mail.gmail.com/
into your for-next branch and then apply the dts patches to your tree
after that.

And then you make sure to write a commit message for the resulting
merge commit that explains why it was pulled.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20240911/561953fb/attachment.sig>