[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d0bf0d9cd2df65dc2e17eb203d56eb13@manjaro.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2024 23:02:43 +0100
From: Dragan Simic <dsimic@...jaro.org>
To: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@....com>
Cc: Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@...il.com>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzk@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzk+dt@...nel.org>, Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai
<wens@...e.org>, Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>, Samuel Holland
<samuel@...lland.org>, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen
Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Maxime Ripard <mripard@...nel.org>, Roman Beranek
<me@...y.cz>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: sunxi: Export PLL_VIDEO_2X and
PLL_MIPI
Hello all,
On 2024-12-17 22:15, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:00:45 -0800
> Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 11:33 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 09:34:57PM -0800, Vasily Khoruzhick wrote:
>> > > These will be used to explicitly select TCON0 clock parent in dts
>> > >
>> > > Fixes: ca1170b69968 ("clk: sunxi-ng: a64: force select PLL_MIPI in TCON0 mux")
>> > > Signed-off-by: Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@...il.com>
>> > > ---
>> > > drivers/clk/sunxi-ng/ccu-sun50i-a64.h | 2 --
>> > > include/dt-bindings/clock/sun50i-a64-ccu.h | 2 +
>>
>> > You cannot combine these changes.
>>
>> The patch basically moves defines out from ccu-sun50i-a64.h to
>> sun50i-a64-ccu.h. How do I split the change without introducing
>> compilation failure?
>
> You can just have the binding part first, adding the (same) definition
> to the binding headers. As long as the #define's are not conflicting,
> this is fine.
> Then remove the now redundant definitions in the kernel headers, with a
> subsequent patch.
Yes, that would be a way to make it formally correct, but also much
less readable and understandable later, as part of the source code
repository. FWIW, I find this to be an example of the form being
more important than the actual function.
>> > Please run scripts/checkpatch.pl and fix reported warnings. Then please
>> > run 'scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict' and (probably) fix more warnings.
>> > Some warnings can be ignored, especially from --strict run, but the code
>> > here looks like it needs a fix. Feel free to get in touch if the warning
>> > is not clear.
>>
>> Yeah, it is not clear what do you want me to do, assuming the previous
>> similar change to sun50i-a64-ccu.h did essentially the same, see
>> 71b597ef5d46a326fb0d5cbfc1c6ff1d73cdc7f9
Powered by blists - more mailing lists