[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250430-wonderful-meticulous-groundhog-cbe6e1@kuoka>
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 09:26:24 +0200
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To: Shin Son <shin.son@...sung.com>
Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, Sunyeal Hong <sunyeal.hong@...sung.com>,
linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] clk: samsung: exynosautov920: Fix incorrect
CLKS_NR_CPUCL0 definition
On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 08:35:16PM GMT, Shin Son wrote:
> The CLKS_NR_CPUCL0 macro was incorrectly defined based on a wrong clock ID.
> It mistakenly referenced CLK_DOUT_CLUSTER0_PERIPHCLK, which corresponds to
> a cluster peripheral clock, not the last clock ID for CPUCL0 as intended.
>
> This patch corrects the definition to use CLK_DOUT_CPUCL0_NOCP + 1,
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
> properly matching the last clock ID for CPUCL0 as intended.
>
> This error was due to confusion with the hardware diagram, and this patch
> ensures that the number of clocks for CPUCL0 is correctly defined.
Fixes: 59636ec89c2c ("clk: samsung: exynosautov920: add cpucl0 clock support")
And proper order - fixes are *ALWAYS* before new features.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists