On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Thanks for an update I will comment all the patches. >> Here we start. > > > Thanks Andy for the review. Two quick comments before going further in the > details later. > >> >>> The BayTrail and CherryTrail platforms provide platform clocks >>> through their Power Management Controller (PMC). >>> >>> The SoC supports up to 6 clocks (PMC_PLT_CLK[5:0]) with a >>> frequency of either 19.2 MHz (PLL) or 25 MHz (XTAL) for BayTrail >>> and a frequency of 19.2 MHz (XTAL) for CherryTrail. These clocks >>> are available for general system use, where appropriate, and each >>> have Control & Frequency register fields associated with them. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart >>> <pierre-louis.bossart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Who is the actual author? SoB I guess should be either the author, or >> 1st, 2nd, ..., last one who is submitter. > > > I ported the initial code from Android legacy stuff and Irina ported the > functionality to the clk framework. It seems appropriate to have both > signed-offs? Yes, but as I mentioned: 1) submitter goes last; 2) SoB lines and Author(s) should reflect actual state of the sources. If patch has 2 SoBs I'm expecting see different names of Authors in the source code. *Or* in some cases it's possible to explain in the commit message why you have former SoB and for what the credit that person(s) get. >>> +#include <linux/platform_data/x86/clk-byt-plt.h> > > > This was a suggestion of Darren Hart in agreement with Thomas Gleixner. > see > http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2016-October/113936.html Hmm... Thanks for pointing to this I didn't aware about such details. But... I still insist that is not a platform data at all in both cases. For clock I would suggest include/linux/clk/ with x86_ prefix. For the rest I have no strong opinion except trying to avoid platform_data wording in the path as much as possible. As an example I could recall DMA engine subsystem where we have include/linux/platform_data/dma-*.h and include/linux/dma/*.h So, this sounds more to me as include/linux/x86/pmc_atom.h > Darren, did we get your proposal right? >> >> Is it indeed platform data? I would not create platform_data/x86 >> without strong argument. >> Perhaps include/linux/clk/x86_pmc.h? (Yes, I know about clk-lpss.h >> which is old enough and was basically first try of clk stuff on x86) -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
