On 21/07/2025 09:08, sungmin park wrote: >>> index fa1e04e87d1d..371005f3f41a 100644 >>> --- a/MAINTAINERS >>> +++ b/MAINTAINERS >>> @@ -2320,6 +2320,20 @@ F: drivers/crypto/axis >>> F: drivers/mmc/host/usdhi6rol0.c >>> F: drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-artpec* >>> >>> +ARM/ARTPEC ARM64 MACHINE SUPPORT >> >> This is samsung soc, so I need a pattern for that as well as I will >> be >> handling patches. > > Can you please explain what you mean to say? Something like I sent for Tesla the same day or shortly after I commented on this. > >> >>> +M: Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@xxxxxxxx> >>> +M: Ravi Patel <ravi.patel@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> +M: SeonGu Kang <ksk4725@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> +M: SungMin Park <smn1196@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Please keep only maintainers who will actually perform reviews of the >> code. I am not even sure if this is worth separate entry outside of >> Samsung. Please list the IP blocks which are not Samsung here. Are you going to implement this in the next patch? > > Is it fine if I merge the list with existing ARTPEC entry? No. Did you read my message? I am not maintainer of existing ARTPEC SoC. > Samsung and Coasia entry can be removed from list as Axis will be only > maintaining the ARTPEC-8 SoC in future. > Please suggest your opinion here. > >> >>> +L: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (moderated for non- >>> subscribers) >>> +L: linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> +L: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxx >>> +S: Maintained >>> +F: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/axis,artpec*- >>> clock.yaml >>> +F: arch/arm64/boot/dts/axis/ >>> +F: drivers/clk/samsung/clk-artpec*.c >>> +F: include/dt-bindings/clock/axis,artpec*-clk.h >>> + >>> ARM/ASPEED I2C DRIVER >>> M: Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> R: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >>> b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >>> index 8b76821f190f..418ee47227c1 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >>> @@ -40,6 +40,19 @@ config ARCH_APPLE >>> This enables support for Apple's in-house ARM SoC family, >>> such >>> as the Apple M1. >>> >>> +config ARCH_ARTPEC >>> + bool "Axis Communications ARTPEC SoC Family" >>> + help >>> + This enables support for the ARMv8 based ARTPEC SoC >>> Family. >>> + >>> +config ARCH_ARTPEC8 >> >> No, drop. One ARCH symbol. >> >>> + bool "Axis ARTPEC-8 SoC Platform" >>> + depends on ARCH_ARTPEC >>> + depends on ARCH_EXYNOS >> >> And that's the proof that this is Samsung SoC. > > Should I move the axis folder inside exynos just like google did? In > that case we don't need separate ARCH entry anymore. > Or should I follow the tesla FSD style to add axis folder outside > exynos? In that case I will keep ARCH_ARTPEC entry only. > Please suggest your opinion here. You did not describe the hardware really. Neither in commit msg, nor in cover letter nor here where I asked to list the non-Samsung IP blocks. I will not provide you guidelines based on magic crystal ball guesses. Best regards, Krzysztof
