[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56678FB2.1080205@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 23:19:30 -0300
From: Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@....samsung.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@...sung.com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Ben Gamari <ben@...rt-cactus.org>
Cc: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
Lukasz Majewski <l.majewski@...sung.com>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@...h.uni-bielefeld.de>,
Anand Moon <linux.amoon@...il.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/8] ARM: dts: Exynos5422: fix OPP tables
Hello Krzysztof,
On 12/08/2015 09:34 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08.12.2015 22:41, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 12/08/2015 05:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> This looks like a very-non-atomic way of handling a change. You added
>>> opp tables to exynos5420 before so at that time they will be applied to
>>> Odroid XU3 family which uses different CPU order. After that you are
>>> fixing the tables to proper CPU order. Direct bisectability probably
>>> won't be an issue because all of DTS would go to separate branch... but
>>> the logic behind confuses.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> I think this should be squashed into 3/8.
>>>
>>
>> I think the patch should be split in two changes, the CPUs device nodes
>> having the wrong clock for clusters is a bug and has to be fixed in a
>> patch before adding the OPP tables and the OPP tables changes should be
>> separated and merged with patch 3/8 as you suggest.
>
> I don't get the point about wrong clock (bug). Where is the bug? Beside
> of course what was introduced in 3/8 and it is not valid for reversed
> cluster order.
>
You are absolutely correct, for some reason I thought that the CLK_ARM_CLK
and CLK_KFC_CLK clocks were already defined in the cpu0 and cpu4 nodes from
exynos5420.dtsi and commit df09df6f9ac3 ("ARM: dts: add exynos5422-cpus.dtsi
to correct cpu order") missed that when reversing the cores for Exynos5422.
But on a second look to patch 3/8, I see that the clocks are defined in that
patch so I agree that $SUBJECT should just be squashed with 3/8 without doing
any split. Sorry for the noise.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists