Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2021-12-15 12:02:37) > 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? > Sounds fine to take through clk tree.
