[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1f60e4d1-ee8a-47fc-8fad-a75ec6485a28@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 15:58:05 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Harry Austen <hpausten@...tonmail.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd
<sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley
<conor+dt@...nel.org>, Michal Simek <michal.simek@....com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Shubhrajyoti Datta <shubhrajyoti.datta@....com>,
Dave Ertman <david.m.ertman@...el.com>, Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/9] clk: clocking-wizard: add user clock monitor
support
On 04/08/2024 14:28, Harry Austen wrote:
> On Sun Aug 4, 2024 at 10:01 AM BST, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 03/08/2024 12:57, Harry Austen wrote:
>>> Improve utilised clk/notifier APIs, making use of device managed versions
>>> of functions, make dynamic reconfiguration support optional (because it is
>>> in hardware) and add support for the clock monitor functionailty added in
>>> version 6.0 of the Xilinx clocking wizard IP core, through use of the
>>> auxiliary bus and UIO frameworks.
>>>
>>> The combined addition of all of these patches allows, for example, to use
>>> the clocking wizard solely for its user clock monitoring logic, keeping
>>> dynamic reconfiguration support disabled.
>>>
>>> This is currently untested on hardware, so any help testing this would be
>>> much appreciated!
>>>
>>> v1 -> v2:
>>> - Split and improve clk_hw+devres transition patch (2+3)
>>> - Fix/improve DT binding patches (5+8)
>>
>> Be specific, what did you change? Anything can be a fix or improvement.
>
> This was intended as more of a summary, referencing the patches which have
> their own more detailed changelogs. But I will be more descriptive in the
> cover letter too in future.
No, if more descriptive changelog is in each patch, then it is fine.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists