On 14/12/2021 22:46, Marijn Suijten wrote:
Hi all,
On 2021-09-18 16:40:38, Marijn Suijten wrote:
On 2021-09-14 14:44:01, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Quoting Marijn Suijten (2021-09-11 06:19:19)
All DSI PHY/PLL drivers were referencing their VCO parent clock by a
global name, most of which don't exist or have been renamed. These
clock drivers seem to function fine without that except the 14nm driver
for sdm6xx [1].
At the same time all DTs provide a "ref" clock as per the requirements
of dsi-phy-common.yaml, but the clock is never used. This patchset puts
that clock to use without relying on a global clock name, so that all
dependencies are explicitly defined in DT (the firmware) in the end.
I can take this through clk tree if it helps avoid conflicts. There are
some other patches to sdm660.c in the clk tree already.
Might be useful to maintain proper ordering of these dependent patches
but it's up to Dmitry and Rob to decide, whom I'm sending this mail
directly to so that they can chime in.
Dependent patch [3] landed in 5.15 and [2] made it into 5.16 rc's - is
it time to pick this series up and if so through what tree?
I'd also second the idea of merging these two patches into 5.17.
Most probably it'd be easier to merge both of them through the clk tree.
Or we can take the first patch into drm-msm (but then we'd have a
dependency between msm-next and clk-qcom-next).
Bjorn, Stephen?
Repeating the links from patch 1/2:
[2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210830175739.143401-1-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
[3]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/20210829203027.276143-2-marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
