[v3,13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC option

Commit Message

Thierry Bultel Feb. 26, 2025, 1:09 p.m. UTC

Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and
SCI (serial) specific code for it.

Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
---
 arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

Comments

Krzysztof Kozlowski Feb. 26, 2025, 2:22 p.m. UTC | #1

On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and
> SCI (serial) specific code for it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
> ---

You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no answer.

That's v3 and still silence from your side.

NAK

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Thierry Bultel Feb. 26, 2025, 2:32 p.m. UTC | #2

Hi Krysztof,

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]> 
>Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:22
>To: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul Barker <[e-mail]>; linux-arm->[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC option
>
>On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and SCI (serial) specific 
>> code for it.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
>> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
>> ---
>
>You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no answer.
>
>That's v3 and still silence from your side.

Yes, I understand your position and have added a paragraph 
at the end of the cover letter about this point.

Best regards
Thierry

>
>NAK
>
>Best regards,
>Krzysztof

Krzysztof Kozlowski Feb. 26, 2025, 2:39 p.m. UTC | #3

On 26/02/2025 15:32, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> Hi Krysztof,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]> 
>> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:22
>> To: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul Barker <[e-mail]>; linux-arm->[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC option
>>
>> On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and SCI (serial) specific 
>>> code for it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
>>> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
>>> ---
>>
>> You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no answer.
>>
>> That's v3 and still silence from your side.
> 
> Yes, I understand your position and have added a paragraph 
> at the end of the cover letter about this point.

We do no read cover letters, unless look for dependencies, so if you
disagree with someone you ought to respond to the email directly. Not
silently discard.

You keep adding more and more symbols, so your "out of scope of this
patchset" is no true. Otherwise every contributor will use exactly the
same arguments - "not my problem".

So again NAK because it is something ought to be finally fixed (and is
not even tricky to, so I don't ask for impossible).


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Thierry Bultel Feb. 26, 2025, 3:44 p.m. UTC | #4

Hi Geert,

Could you provide some input here on how you'd like these config options
to be handled please ?

Thanks !
Thierry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]>
> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:40
> To: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul Barker
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC
> option
> 
> On 26/02/2025 15:32, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> > Hi Krysztof,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:22
> >> To: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>;
> >> [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul
> >> Barker <[e-mail]>;
> >> linux-arm->[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H
> >> SoC option
> >>
> >> On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> >>> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and SCI (serial)
> >>> specific code for it.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no
> answer.
> >>
> >> That's v3 and still silence from your side.
> >
> > Yes, I understand your position and have added a paragraph at the end
> > of the cover letter about this point.
> 
> We do no read cover letters, unless look for dependencies, so if you
> disagree with someone you ought to respond to the email directly. Not
> silently discard.
> 
> You keep adding more and more symbols, so your "out of scope of this
> patchset" is no true. Otherwise every contributor will use exactly the
> same arguments - "not my problem".
> 
> So again NAK because it is something ought to be finally fixed (and is not
> even tricky to, so I don't ask for impossible).
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Geert Uytterhoeven Feb. 27, 2025, 9:24 a.m. UTC | #5

Hi Krzysztof,

On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 15:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 26/02/2025 15:32, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]>
> >> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:22
> >> To: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul Barker <[e-mail]>; linux-arm->[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC option
> >>
> >> On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> >>> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and SCI (serial) specific
> >>> code for it.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
> >>> ---
> >>
> >> You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no answer.
> >>
> >> That's v3 and still silence from your side.
> >
> > Yes, I understand your position and have added a paragraph
> > at the end of the cover letter about this point.
>
> We do no read cover letters, unless look for dependencies, so if you
> disagree with someone you ought to respond to the email directly. Not
> silently discard.
>
> You keep adding more and more symbols, so your "out of scope of this
> patchset" is no true. Otherwise every contributor will use exactly the
> same arguments - "not my problem".
>
> So again NAK because it is something ought to be finally fixed (and is
> not even tricky to, so I don't ask for impossible).

Adding RAM to existing systems is usually quite hard ;-)

Not all Renesas SoCs are used in systems with multi-GiBs of RAM, so
IMHO it is still valuable to have fine control over which SoCs are
supported by your kernel (and e.g. which large pin control tables are
included in your kernel image).

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

Krzysztof Kozlowski Feb. 27, 2025, 9:43 a.m. UTC | #6

On 27/02/2025 10:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 15:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 26/02/2025 15:32, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]>
>>>> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:22
>>>> To: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
>>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul Barker <[e-mail]>; linux-arm->[e-mail]; [e-mail]
>>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC option
>>>>
>>>> On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>>> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and SCI (serial) specific
>>>>> code for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no answer.
>>>>
>>>> That's v3 and still silence from your side.
>>>
>>> Yes, I understand your position and have added a paragraph
>>> at the end of the cover letter about this point.
>>
>> We do no read cover letters, unless look for dependencies, so if you
>> disagree with someone you ought to respond to the email directly. Not
>> silently discard.
>>
>> You keep adding more and more symbols, so your "out of scope of this
>> patchset" is no true. Otherwise every contributor will use exactly the
>> same arguments - "not my problem".
>>
>> So again NAK because it is something ought to be finally fixed (and is
>> not even tricky to, so I don't ask for impossible).
> 
> Adding RAM to existing systems is usually quite hard ;-)
> 
> Not all Renesas SoCs are used in systems with multi-GiBs of RAM, so
> IMHO it is still valuable to have fine control over which SoCs are
> supported by your kernel (and e.g. which large pin control tables are
> included in your kernel image).


This is fine, I am not against fine-grained SoC-enable options. However
all your SoCs should be enabled by default (default y if ARCH_RENESAS or
any other option which works for you) thus you won't be growing
user-selectable choices.

Strictly speaking this still will be choice, because you need to trim
config, but all people and all distros will just ignore it  and don't
see it in defconfig.

> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 


Best regards,
Krzysztof

Thierry Bultel Feb. 27, 2025, 10:48 a.m. UTC | #7

Thanks Krzysztof,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]>
> Sent: jeudi 27 février 2025 10:43
> To: Geert Uytterhoeven <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>;
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul Barker
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas RZ/T2H SoC
> option
> 
> On 27/02/2025 10:24, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> >
> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 at 15:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >> On 26/02/2025 15:32, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]>
> >>>> Sent: mercredi 26 février 2025 15:22
> >>>> To: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>;
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Paul
> >>>> Barker <[e-mail]>;
> >>>> linux-arm->[e-mail]; [e-mail]
> >>>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 13/13] arm64: defconfig: Enable Renesas
> >>>> RZ/T2H SoC option
> >>>>
> >>>> On 26/02/2025 14:09, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> >>>>> Selects support for RZ/T2H (aka r9a09g077), and SCI (serial)
> >>>>> specific code for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Bultel <[e-mail]>
> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Paul Barker <[e-mail]>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> You never responded to my comments at v1. So I asked at v2. Still no
> answer.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's v3 and still silence from your side.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I understand your position and have added a paragraph at the
> >>> end of the cover letter about this point.
> >>
> >> We do no read cover letters, unless look for dependencies, so if you
> >> disagree with someone you ought to respond to the email directly. Not
> >> silently discard.
> >>
> >> You keep adding more and more symbols, so your "out of scope of this
> >> patchset" is no true. Otherwise every contributor will use exactly
> >> the same arguments - "not my problem".
> >>
> >> So again NAK because it is something ought to be finally fixed (and
> >> is not even tricky to, so I don't ask for impossible).
> >
> > Adding RAM to existing systems is usually quite hard ;-)
> >
> > Not all Renesas SoCs are used in systems with multi-GiBs of RAM, so
> > IMHO it is still valuable to have fine control over which SoCs are
> > supported by your kernel (and e.g. which large pin control tables are
> > included in your kernel image).
> 
> 
> This is fine, I am not against fine-grained SoC-enable options. However
> all your SoCs should be enabled by default (default y if ARCH_RENESAS or
> any other option which works for you) thus you won't be growing user-
> selectable choices.
> 
> Strictly speaking this still will be choice, because you need to trim
> config, but all people and all distros will just ignore it  and don't see
> it in defconfig.
> 

I understand.

All the ARCH_XXX SoC options are already under a menuconfig section, which
is defaulted to 'y' if ARCH_RENESAS.

So I guess that this simple additional change would make it:

diff --git a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
index 91a815e0a522..231880c21aa7 100644
--- a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
@@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ config ARCH_R9A09G057
 
 config ARCH_R9A09G077
        bool "ARM64 Platform support for RZ/T2H"
+       default y
        help
          This enables support for the Renesas RZ/T2H SoC variants.

Regards
Thierry

> >
> > Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> >
> >                         Geert
> >
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof

Krzysztof Kozlowski Feb. 27, 2025, 11:48 a.m. UTC | #8

On 27/02/2025 11:48, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>
>> This is fine, I am not against fine-grained SoC-enable options. However
>> all your SoCs should be enabled by default (default y if ARCH_RENESAS or
>> any other option which works for you) thus you won't be growing user-
>> selectable choices.
>>
>> Strictly speaking this still will be choice, because you need to trim
>> config, but all people and all distros will just ignore it  and don't see
>> it in defconfig.
>>
> 
> I understand.
> 
> All the ARCH_XXX SoC options are already under a menuconfig section, which
> is defaulted to 'y' if ARCH_RENESAS.

Indeed and it actually cannot have "if ARCH_RENESAS" due to how compile
test is enabled there.

> 
> So I guess that this simple additional change would make it:
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> index 91a815e0a522..231880c21aa7 100644
> --- a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> @@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ config ARCH_R9A09G057
>  
>  config ARCH_R9A09G077
>         bool "ARM64 Platform support for RZ/T2H"
> +       default y
>         help
>           This enables support for the Renesas RZ/T2H SoC variants.

Yes and then run savedefconfig and check if defconfig needs this symbol.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

Geert Uytterhoeven Feb. 27, 2025, 1:25 p.m. UTC | #9

Hi Krzysztof,

On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 12:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 27/02/2025 11:48, Thierry Bultel wrote:
> >> This is fine, I am not against fine-grained SoC-enable options. However
> >> all your SoCs should be enabled by default (default y if ARCH_RENESAS or
> >> any other option which works for you) thus you won't be growing user-
> >> selectable choices.
> >>
> >> Strictly speaking this still will be choice, because you need to trim
> >> config, but all people and all distros will just ignore it  and don't see
> >> it in defconfig.
> >>
> >
> > I understand.
> >
> > All the ARCH_XXX SoC options are already under a menuconfig section, which
> > is defaulted to 'y' if ARCH_RENESAS.
>
> Indeed and it actually cannot have "if ARCH_RENESAS" due to how compile
> test is enabled there.

Sorry, I don't get what you mean here...

> > So I guess that this simple additional change would make it:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> > index 91a815e0a522..231880c21aa7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
> > @@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ config ARCH_R9A09G057
> >
> >  config ARCH_R9A09G077
> >         bool "ARM64 Platform support for RZ/T2H"
> > +       default y

Please add "if ARCH_RENESAS" iff we decide to go this route...

> >         help
> >           This enables support for the Renesas RZ/T2H SoC variants.
>
> Yes and then run savedefconfig and check if defconfig needs this symbol.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

Krzysztof Kozlowski Feb. 27, 2025, 1:34 p.m. UTC | #10

On 27/02/2025 14:25, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 at 12:48, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> On 27/02/2025 11:48, Thierry Bultel wrote:
>>>> This is fine, I am not against fine-grained SoC-enable options. However
>>>> all your SoCs should be enabled by default (default y if ARCH_RENESAS or
>>>> any other option which works for you) thus you won't be growing user-
>>>> selectable choices.
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking this still will be choice, because you need to trim
>>>> config, but all people and all distros will just ignore it  and don't see
>>>> it in defconfig.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I understand.
>>>
>>> All the ARCH_XXX SoC options are already under a menuconfig section, which
>>> is defaulted to 'y' if ARCH_RENESAS.
>>
>> Indeed and it actually cannot have "if ARCH_RENESAS" due to how compile
>> test is enabled there.
> 
> Sorry, I don't get what you mean here...

Probably I got top-level COMPILE_TEST opposite and it actually should be
"if ARCH_RENESAS" as I suggested. Otherwise it would be enabled by
default for compile tests.


> 
>>> So I guess that this simple additional change would make it:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
>>> index 91a815e0a522..231880c21aa7 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/renesas/Kconfig
>>> @@ -358,6 +358,7 @@ config ARCH_R9A09G057
>>>
>>>  config ARCH_R9A09G077
>>>         bool "ARM64 Platform support for RZ/T2H"
>>> +       default y
> 
> Please add "if ARCH_RENESAS" iff we decide to go this route...

Yeah, like I suggested earlier.



Best regards,
Krzysztof

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
index cb7da4415599..f7be1bbc5661 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
@@ -492,6 +492,7 @@  CONFIG_SERIAL_TEGRA_TCU=y
 CONFIG_SERIAL_IMX=y
 CONFIG_SERIAL_IMX_CONSOLE=y
 CONFIG_SERIAL_SH_SCI=y
+CONFIG_SERIAL_RZ_SCI=y
 CONFIG_SERIAL_MSM=y
 CONFIG_SERIAL_MSM_CONSOLE=y
 CONFIG_SERIAL_QCOM_GENI=y
@@ -1484,6 +1485,7 @@  CONFIG_ARCH_R9A08G045=y
 CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G011=y
 CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G047=y
 CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G057=y
+CONFIG_ARCH_R9A09G077=y
 CONFIG_ROCKCHIP_IODOMAIN=y
 CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_132_SOC=y
 CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_210_SOC=y