[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <58745576.4010105@rock-chips.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 11:31:02 +0800
From: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...gle.com>
Cc: Heiko Stübner <heiko@...ech.de>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Caesar Wang <wxt@...k-chips.com>,
Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@...k-chips.com>,
Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@...k-chips.com>,
Elaine Zhang <zhangqing@...k-chips.com>,
David Wu <david.wu@...k-chips.com>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] arm64: dts: rockchip: add "rockchip, grf" property for
RK3399 PMUCRU/CRU
Hi, Doug
On 2017年01月10日 11:06, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com> wrote:
>> The structure rockchip_clk_provider needs to refer the GRF regmap
>> in somewhere, if the CRU node has not "rockchip,grf" property,
>> calling syscon_regmap_lookup_by_phandle will return an invalid GRF
>> regmap, and the MUXGRF type clock will be not supported.
>>
>> Therefore, we need to add them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v3:
>> - add optional roperty rockchip,grf in rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt
>>
>> Changes in v2:
>> - referring pmugrf for PMUGRU
>> - fix the typo "invaild" in COMMIT message
>>
>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/rockchip,rk3399-cru.txt | 5 +++++
>> arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3399.dtsi | 2 ++
> "dts" and bindings shouldn't change in the same patch since they go
> through different trees. This is why I said:
>
>> This looks sane to me, but before you land it you need to first send
>> up a (separate) patch that adjusts:
>> --------
> AKA: you need a two patch series here.
>
> Sometimes it's OK to include bindings together with code changes
> (depends on the maintainer), but never with dts changes.
>
> -Doug
For little lazy, I did refer other SoC platform to using "dts" and
bindings in the same patch...
OK, I will use a two patch series.
Thanks
>
>
--
- Xing Zheng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists