[PATCH 00/20] arm: Initial support for Analog Devices SC5xx boards

[Gaskell, Oliver]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2024 3:52 PM
> To: Gaskell, Oliver <Oliver.Gaskell at analog.com>
> Cc: Nathan Barrett-Morrison <nathan.morrison at timesys.com>; Greg Malysa
> <greg.malysa at timesys.com>; Ian Roberts <ian.roberts at timesys.com>;
> Bimpikas, Vasileios <Vasileios.Bimpikas at analog.com>; Agarwal, Utsav
> <Utsav.Agarwal at analog.com>; Artamonovs, Arturs
> <Arturs.Artamonovs at analog.com>; Rayagonda Kokatanur
> <rayagonda.kokatanur at broadcom.com>; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Linux Factory
> <adsp-linux at analog.com>; Trevor Woerner <twoerner at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] arm: Initial support for Analog Devices SC5xx
> boards
> 
> [External]
> 
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 11:02:08AM +0100, Oliver Gaskell via B4 Relay
> wrote:
> > ADSP-SC5xx is a series of ARM-based DSPs.
> > This comprises the armv7 based SC57x, SC58x and SC594 series, and the
> > armv8 based SC598.
> >
> > This patch series includes configurations, init code, and minimal DTs
> > to enable Analog Devices' evaluation boards for these SoCs to boot
> > through SPL and into U-Boot Proper, as well as devicetree schemas for
> > the added DTs.
> >
> > This patch series depends on ("arm: Add Analog Devices SC5xx Machine
> > Type") (https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2024-April/552043.html)
> 
> Since that series has been merged since early May, what is this series
> based on top of? It should be based on top of current (or close enough
> to not matter) -next. Also, has everything been passed through
> checkpatch.pl and the results looked at? Thanks.

I made it on top of -rc1, just tested and I think it applies cleanly
to -rc3 and next. Wasn't sure on the policy re. patch series dependencies
so just wanted to be 100% sure that was clear. 

It has been run through checkpatch, there's a few warnings that I think
are OK. Only warning I missed is about the Co-developed-by tags not
having matching Signed-off-by tags - if this is an issue I can make a v2
that fixes this.

> 
> --
> Tom

Thanks, Oliver