linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] media: dt-bindings: update clocks for sc7280-camss

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <901ede5f-c5a1-42c4-ad87-b02e3ab332e4@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 17:05:01 +0100
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Vikram Sharma <quic_vikramsa@...cinc.com>, rfoss@...nel.org,
 todor.too@...il.com, bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
 robh@...nel.org, krzk+dt@...nel.org, conor+dt@...nel.org,
 akapatra@...cinc.com, hariramp@...cinc.com, andersson@...nel.org,
 konradybcio@...nel.org, hverkuil-cisco@...all.nl,
 cros-qcom-dts-watchers@...omium.org, catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...cinc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] media: dt-bindings: update clocks for sc7280-camss

On 21/01/2025 17:02, Vikram Sharma wrote:
> 
> On 1/21/2025 6:25 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 21/01/2025 13:09, Vikram Sharma wrote:
>>> This patch change clock names to make it consistent with
>>
>> Please do not use "This commit/patch/change", but imperative mood. See
>> longer explanation here:
>> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.17.1/source/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst#L95
> Hi Krzysztof,
> Thanks for your response.
> Will update commit text.
>>> existing platforms as gcc_cam_hf_axi -> gcc_axi_hf.
>> Which ones? sm8250 uses different.
> qcom,sc8280xp-camss.yaml uses 'gcc_axi_hf'


Then mention with which binding you align it.

>>
>>> This also adds gcc_axi_sf and remove gcc_camera_ahb.
>> Why?
> 
> 'gcc_camera_ahb' is always 'on' and we don't need to enable it explicitly.
> 'gcc_axi_sf' basic use case works even without this clock but our 'Hardware programing guide' suggest to enable this one too to avoid unexpected behaviors.
> Konrad pointed these points in V8 of the series.

That's what the commit msg is for.


Best regards,
Krzysztof