On 29/04/2024 10:13, Varadarajan Narayanan wrote:
for (i = 0, j = 0; i < num_clocks; i++) {
qp->clocks[i].clk = data[i].clk;
- node = icc_node_create(first_id + j);
+ node = icc_node_create(first_id + data[i].master_id);
You have a few conditionals in the way down the end of the existing
for() loop but then you hit this
onecell->nodes[j++] = node;
}
which means that this
node = icc_node_create(first_id + data[i].master_id);
is not analogous to this
node = icc_node_create(first_id + j);
So for any loop of this for() where j was incremented previously you
would not _not_ have the same node ids after your change.
In other words dropping the j index will result in different node numbering.
Is that
a) intended
b) correct
Your commit log says "allow the drive rto provide the preferred master
ids and slave ids" which it does but it _also_ changes the autogenerated
ids.
So could you either a) fix that or b) justify it, in your commit log.
Also I think the 8996 specific change should be in its own patch.
TBH I'm not sure the autogen change is on-purpose or warranted and for
certain the commit log is not elucidating on which is the intended case.
I think you should rewrite this patch in two ways
1. Fix the autogen case or
1. Justify the change for the autogen case.
2. Separate drivers/clk/qcom/clk-cbf-8996.c into its own patch that
applies directly after changing the core
Perhaps you've already gone through this debate with other reviewers but
then you haven't captured that in your cover letter or commit log so at
a minimum, please do that.
---
bod
