On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 00:04, Sergey Kambalin <serg.o...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Introducing Raspberry Pi 4B model. > It contains new BCM2838 SoC, PCIE subsystem, > RNG200, Thermal sensor and Genet network controller. > > It can work with recent linux kernels 6.x.x. > Two avocado tests was added to check that. > > Unit tests has been made as read/write operations > via mailbox properties. > > Genet integration test is under development. > > Every single commit > 1) builds without errors > 2) passes regression tests > 3) passes style check* > *the only exception is bcm2838-mbox-property-test.c file > containing heavy macros usage which cause a lot of > false-positives of checkpatch.pl. > > I did my best to keep the commits less than 200 changes, > but had to make some of them a bit more in order to > keep their integrity. > > > Sergey Kambalin (41): > Split out common part of BCM283X classes > Split out common part of peripherals > Split out raspi machine common part > Introduce BCM2838 SoC > Add GIC-400 to BCM2838 SoC > Add BCM2838 GPIO stub > Implement BCM2838 GPIO functionality
I've just noticed that the commit messages in this series are missing the conventional prefix that indicates what part of the codebase they apply to (hw/arm, hw/gpio, etc). I propose to add those in on my end for the patches I'm taking into target-arm.next. I think the one question I have left is the name of the board: currently it's "raspi4b-2g", but should we name it just "raspi4b"? None of the names we use for the other raspi boards we model have a suffix like the "-2g" here. Philippe, do you have an opinion here ? -- PMM
