Re: [PATCH V2 RESEND] soc: loongson: add Loongson Security Module driver

[Zhao Qunqin <zhaoqunqin@loongson.cn>]

在 2024/12/28 下午7:02, Krzysztof Kozlowski 写道:
> On 24/12/2024 08:25, Qunqin Zhao wrote:
>> This driver supports Loongson Security Module, which
>> provides the control for it's hardware encryption
>> acceleration child devices.
> Please wrap commit message according to Linux coding style / submission
> process (neither too early nor over the limit):
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.4-rc1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L597
OK
>> Only ACPI firmware is supported.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qunqin Zhao <zhaoqunqin@loongson.cn>
> I don't get why you are sending this to soc. This is loongson specific
> and is supposed to go via Loongson maintainers.
>
> And why is this a resend?

There are no platform-specific maintainers, So I initially sent the 
patch to Arnd,

but didn't receive a response from Arnold, so I resent the patch and added

soc@kernel.org to the mailing list.

>> ---
>> Changes in v2:
>> 	- Removed useless memset() in probe.
>> 	- Cleaned up coding style.
>> 	- Corrected the spelling.
>>
>>   MAINTAINERS                        |   7 +
>>   drivers/soc/loongson/Kconfig       |   9 +
>>   drivers/soc/loongson/Makefile      |   1 +
>>   drivers/soc/loongson/loongson_se.c | 523 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   include/soc/loongson/se.h          | 135 ++++++++
>
> include/linux/soc/... or just keep it private to the driver. Why this
> has to be exposed to other users?

Looks like  include/linux/soc... is more suitable than include/soc/...

This driver is the base of other users,  one user will be added in next 
revision.

And may I ask which one do you think is more suitable to place this 
basic driver under SOC or MFD ?


Thanks.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof