[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7bed14be-2850-42b0-abb4-43aad25a19cb@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2024 09:54:09 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>,
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
<sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: add SA8540P gpucc
On 26/03/2024 17:40, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 04:59:43PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 26/03/2024 15:01, Johan Hovold wrote:
>>> The SA8540P platform is closely related to SC8280XP but differs in that
>>> it uses an external supply for the GX power domain.
>>>
>>> Add a new compatible string for the SA8540P GPU clock controller so that
>>> the OS can determine which resources to look for.
>>>
>>> Fixes: e60b95d2b687 ("dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Allow VDD_GFX supply to GX")
>>
>> I don't get why adding new device support is a fix. Commit msg did not
>> help me to understand it.
>
> Yeah, perhaps I could have expanded on the problem a bit more here.
>
> Hopefully it's clear if you look at the cover letter, but the commit
> referred to above should have added a new compatible for SA8540P which
> uses the new supply so that the OS can determine when it should try to
> look it up and when it is required.
>
> The Fixes tag can also be dropped, I admit this is not clear-cut.
Some sort of short explanation would be good in the commit msg, so Fixes
can stay.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@...nel.org>
>>> ---
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
>>> index f57aceddac6b..5b385e4976b6 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
>>> @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ properties:
>>> compatible:
>>> enum:
>>> - qcom,sdm845-gpucc
>>> + - qcom,sa8540p-gpucc
>>
>> This looks fine and pretty trivial, but I really do not understand why
>> skipping our list for automated testing.
>>
>> <standard letter>
> ...
>> </standard letter>
>
> Spare me the rant. This was obviously a mistake from reusing and
> manually amending a git-send-email command from shell history and
> failing to notice that this series also should have been CCed the
> devicetree list.
That's not a rant but a template. :) You know, some people don't Cc DT
list on purpose, claiming "it is trivial patch and I already Cc'ed other
mailing lists". I don't know what was the reason here.
I forgot one more template to add:
P.S. This review might include comments based on templates. My intention
is not to offend or patronize but streamline my review process. Thank
you for understanding.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists