27.10.2020 11:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет: > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:14:10PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> 26.10.2020 18:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет: >>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:16:43AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> This series brings initial support for memory interconnect to Tegra20, >>>> Tegra30 and Tegra124 SoCs. >>>> >>>> For the starter only display controllers and devfreq devices are getting >>>> interconnect API support, others could be supported later on. The display >>>> controllers have the biggest demand for interconnect API right now because >>>> dynamic memory frequency scaling can't be done safely without taking into >>>> account bandwidth requirement from the displays. In particular this series >>>> fixes distorted display output on T30 Ouya and T124 TK1 devices. >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> You introduced in v6 multiple new patches. Could you describe the >>> dependencies, if any? >> >> Hello, >> >> The v6 dropped some older patches and replaced them with the new >> patches. Previously I wanted to postpone the more complex changes for >> later times, like supporting OPP tables and DVFS, but then the review >> started to take more time than was expected and there was enough time to >> complete those features. >> >> There are five basic sets of patches: >> >> 1. DT bindings >> 2. DT changes >> 3. SoC, clk and memory >> 4. devfreq >> 5. DRM >> >> Each set could be applied separately. >> >> Memory patches have a build dependency on the SoC and clk patches. >> >> The "tegra-mc: Add interconnect framework" and "Add and use >> devm_tegra_get_memory_controller()" are the root build dependencies for >> all memory/ patches. Other patches are grouped per SoC generation >> (Tegra20/30/124), patches within a SoC-gen group are interdependent. >> >> I suppose the best variant would be to merge the whole series via >> tegra-tree in order to preserve logical order of the patches. Although, >> merging each set of patches separately also should be okay to do. > > Thanks for explanation. I already have three patches for Tegra MC (and > probably two more will be respun) so this might be conflict-prone. The > easiest in such case is to provide me soc and clk patches on the branch, > so I could keep all Tegra MC together. Okay, but those T210 patches don't touch the same code, neither same source files. For now there should be no merge conflicts.
