diff mbox series

[1/5] dt-bindings: clock: qcom: add SA8540P gpucc

Message ID 20240326140108.21307-2-johan+linaro@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State Changes Requested
Headers show
Series clk: qcom: gpucc-sc8280xp: fix GX external supply lookup | expand

Commit Message

Johan Hovold March 26, 2024, 2:01 p.m. UTC
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")
Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
---
 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

Comments

Krzysztof Kozlowski March 26, 2024, 3:59 p.m. UTC | #1
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.


> Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.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>
Please use scripts/get_maintainers.pl to get a list of necessary people
and lists to CC. It might happen, that command when run on an older
kernel, gives you outdated entries. Therefore please be sure you base
your patches on recent Linux kernel.

Tools like b4 or scripts/get_maintainer.pl provide you proper list of
people, so fix your workflow. Tools might also fail if you work on some
ancient tree (don't, instead use mainline), work on fork of kernel
(don't, instead use mainline) or you ignore some maintainers (really
don't). Just use b4 and everything should be fine, although remember
about `b4 prep --auto-to-cc` if you added new patches to the patchset.

You missed at least devicetree list (maybe more), so this won't be
tested by automated tooling. Performing review on untested code might be
a waste of time.

Please kindly resend and include all necessary To/Cc entries.
</standard letter>

Best regards,
Krzysztof
Johan Hovold March 26, 2024, 4:40 p.m. UTC | #2
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.

> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.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.

Johan
Krzysztof Kozlowski March 27, 2024, 8:54 a.m. UTC | #3
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@kernel.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
Johan Hovold March 28, 2024, 3:43 p.m. UTC | #4
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 09:54:09AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

There is an explanation in the commit message, but I agree that it could
be expanded.

After talking to Bjorn about this yesterday, he convinced me that simply
treating the supply as optional is the right thing to do here.

Apparently it is possible to us an external supply also on sc8280xp.
There's more to the story, and I don't have access to the documentation,
but we'll go with the simpler:

	https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240325081957.10946-1-johan+linaro@kernel.org/

for now.

Johan
diff mbox series

Patch

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
       - qcom,sa8775p-gpucc
       - qcom,sc7180-gpucc
       - qcom,sc7280-gpucc