On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 09:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 02/04/2024 20:35, Ajit Pandey wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 3/31/2024 12:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 30/03/2024 19:28, Ajit Pandey wrote:
> >>> In LUCID EVO PLL CAL_L_VAL and L_VAL bitfields are part of single
> >>> PLL_L_VAL register. Update for L_VAL bitfield values in PLL_L_VAL
> >>> register using regmap_write() API in __alpha_pll_trion_set_rate
> >>> callback will override LUCID EVO PLL initial configuration related
> >>> to PLL_CAL_L_VAL bit fields in PLL_L_VAL register.
> >>>
> >>> Observed random PLL lock failures during PLL enable due to such
> >>> override in PLL calibration value. Use regmap_update_bits() with
> >>> L_VAL bitfield mask instead of regmap_write() API to update only
> >>> PLL_L_VAL bitfields in __alpha_pll_trion_set_rate callback.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 260e36606a03 ("clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: add Lucid EVO PLL configuration interfaces")
> >>>
> >>
> >> No blank lines between tags.
> >>
> >> Add Cc-stable tag.
> >>
> > Sure, will update in next series
> >
> >> Please do not combine fixes with new features.
> >> > Best regards,
> >> Krzysztof
> >>
> >
> > Actually this fix is required for correct scaling for few frequencies in
> > this patch series, hence combined them together and pushed this fix as
> > first patch in series so that they get mainlined together and feature
> > functionality will not get impacted.
>
> OK, that's fine but usual way is that such need is expressed in the
> cover letter, so maintainer will know what to do. What if this patch
> should go to fixes and rest normally to for-next? How do you expect
> maintainer to apply the patch? Entire thread and then manually move the
> commits? Why making it so complicated for the maintainers?
Huh? I think it's pretty normal to have fixes in front of the patch
series. Having it in the middle would be troublesome indeed. You are
the first person to complain.
--
With best wishes
Dmitry
