On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 04:59:43PM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 15:01, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > The SA8540P platform is closely related to SC8280XP but differs in that
> > it uses an external supply for the GX power domain.
> >
> > Add a new compatible string for the SA8540P GPU clock controller so that
> > the OS can determine which resources to look for.
> >
> > Fixes: e60b95d2b687 ("dt-bindings: clock: qcom: Allow VDD_GFX supply to GX")
>
> I don't get why adding new device support is a fix. Commit msg did not
> help me to understand it.
Yeah, perhaps I could have expanded on the problem a bit more here.
Hopefully it's clear if you look at the cover letter, but the commit
referred to above should have added a new compatible for SA8540P which
uses the new supply so that the OS can determine when it should try to
look it up and when it is required.
The Fixes tag can also be dropped, I admit this is not clear-cut.
> > Signed-off-by: Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml | 1 +
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
> > index f57aceddac6b..5b385e4976b6 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml
> > @@ -28,6 +28,7 @@ properties:
> > compatible:
> > enum:
> > - qcom,sdm845-gpucc
> > + - qcom,sa8540p-gpucc
>
> This looks fine and pretty trivial, but I really do not understand why
> skipping our list for automated testing.
>
> <standard letter>
...
> </standard letter>
Spare me the rant. This was obviously a mistake from reusing and
manually amending a git-send-email command from shell history and
failing to notice that this series also should have been CCed the
devicetree list.
Johan
