2015-06-08 13:21 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi Krzysztof , > > On 8 June 2015 at 07:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07.06.2015 22:20, Anand Moon wrote: >>> Facilitate getting required 3.3V and 1.0V VDD supply for >>> EHCI controller on Exynos. >>> >>> With the patches for regulators' nodes merged in 3.15: >>> c8c253f ARM: dts: Add regulator entries to smdk5420 >>> 275dcd2 ARM: dts: add max77686 pmic node for smdk5250, >>> the exynos systems turn on only minimal number of regulators. >>> >>> Until now, the VDD regulator supplies were either turned on >>> by the bootloader, or the regulators were enabled by default >>> in the kernel, so that the controller drivers did not need to >>> care about turning on these regulators on their own. >>> This was rather bad about these controller drivers. >>> So ensuring now that the controller driver requests the necessary >>> VDD regulators (if available, unless there are direct VDD rails), >>> and enable them so as to make them working. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <linux.amoon@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Jingoo Han <jg1.han@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> Initial version of this patch was part of following series, though >>> they are not dependent on each other, resubmitting after rebasing. >>> >>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-June/266418.html >> >> So you just took Vivek's patch along with all the credits... That is not >> how we usually do this. >> >> I would expect that rebasing a patch won't change the author unless this >> is fine with Vivek. >> > > Sorry If I have done some mistake on my part. > I just looked at below mail chain. Before I send it. > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-samsung-soc/msg44136.html I don't get it. The patch you are referring to has a proper "From" field. So please use it as an example. > > I don't want to take any credit out of it. I just re-base on the new kernel. > I could not test this patch as it meant for exynos5440 boards. Are you sure? I think the driver is used on almost all of Exynos SoCs (Exynos4, Exynos5250, Exynos542x). Untested code should not go to the kernel. Additionally you should mark it as not-tested. Marking such patch as non-tested could help you finding some independent tests (tests performed by someone else). To summarize my point of view: 1. Unless Vivek's says otherwise, please give him the credits with proper "from" field. 2. Issues mentioned in previous mail should be addressed (missing IS_ERR(), how disabling the regulator during suspend affects waking up). 3. The patchset must be tested, even after rebasing. Best regards, Krzysztof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
