On 26/03/2024 17:40, Johan Hovold wrote:
> 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.
Some sort of short explanation would be good in the commit msg, so Fixes
can stay.
>
>>> 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.
That's not a rant but a template. :) You know, some people don't Cc DT
list on purpose, claiming "it is trivial patch and I already Cc'ed other
mailing lists". I don't know what was the reason here.
I forgot one more template to add:
P.S. This review might include comments based on templates. My intention
is not to offend or patronize but streamline my review process. Thank
you for understanding.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
