Hi,
On Monday, June 08, 2015 10:44 AM, "Krzysztof Kozlowski"
<k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
my apologies for being late in replying to this thread.
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.
Perhaps, you would have maintained the authorship !
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).
That's correct, as pointed by Krzysztof Kozlowski, the driver is same for
Exynos4 and Exynos5 series
of SoCs.
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.
Unfortunately, I got busy with a different project and lost track of the
patches posted upstream.
If it's not too late I can post a rebased version of the patch with previous
review comments addressed.
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
