[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM3PiRwkSzD=23r9decc+wsEUvGvDDQ9bQF-stGFY180T4PHwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:36:23 +1030
From: Marian Mihailescu <mihailescu2m@...il.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] ARM: dts: exynos5420: add mali dt node and enable
mali on Odroid XU3/4
Apologies - it was applied and tested on latest -rc, however I had
gpu_tmu enabled as well (by adding status=okay), line which was not
included in the patch and was the cause of it not applying. Fixed it
in the coming v5, tested and applies on a fresh -rc7.
Either I've been missing something or nothing has been going on. (K. E. Gordon)
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 1:49 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 09:25:27AM +1030, Marian Mihailescu wrote:
> > Add device tree node for Mali GPU for Exynos 542x SoC.
> > GPU is disabled by default, and is enabled for each board after the
> > regulator is defined. Tested on Odroid-XU4.
> >
> > Changes since v3:
> > - fixed compatible to match bindings
> >
> > Changes since v2:
> > - separate patch for bindings
> > - fixed bindings typo
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - used generic node and label for GPU
> > - added bindings for compatible
> > - fixed irq indentation
> > - fixed interrupt-names to match bindings
> > - added cooling cells for future TMU connection
> > - used generic node and label for GPU opp table
> > - removed always-on from SoC GPU regulator
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Marian Mihailescu <mihailescu2m@...il.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5422-odroid-core.dtsi | 6 +++-
>
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately this does not apply around exynos5422-odroid-core.dtsi.
> I think there were no changes to this file in current development cycle
> so I am surprised that there are conflicts.
>
> On what version were you basing your patch? Was it tested on latest
> kernel? The patches should be based usually on one of:
> 1. current-rc1 (v5.4-rc1)
> 2. latest-rc (v5.4-rc7)
> 3. maintainer's tree (my next/dt or for-next)
> 4. linux-next
>
> In all other cases the patch would need rebasing and re-testing.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists