On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 11:00:32AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 30/11/2024 10:57, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 10:29:38AM +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> On 30/11/2024 02:44, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > >>> IPQ5018 is one of the platforms where board-level clocks (XO, sleep) > >>> definitions are split between the SoC dtsi file and the board file. > >>> This is not optimal, as the clocks are a part of the SoC + PMICs design. > >>> Frequencies are common for the whole set of devices using the same SoC. > >>> Remove the split and move frequencies to the SoC DTSI file. > >>> > >>> Suggested-by: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> This contradicts DTS coding style and all my existing review. Obviously > >> that's a NAK from me. If you want to merge this patch, please kindly > >> carry my formal objection for this and all following "move board clocks" > >> patches: > >> > >> Nacked-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > I'd kindly ask Bjorn to chime in as a platform maintainer. > > > To change my NAK? NAK is still a NAK. We discussed it many, many times > already. We have coding style for this explicitly mentioning this case. > Could not be more specific... plus all my reviews for Qualcomm, NXP, TI, > ST and other platforms. I would be quite unpredictable or unfair if I > gave here some sort of exception while expecting different code from > other platforms. > > Please carry my NAK. Of course. I didn't mean to drop your tag or your objection. BTW, would it be possible for you to clarify the policy on external references? I mean, is it fine for DTSI to reference a label which is not defined within that file or within one of the files that it includes? -- With best wishes Dmitry
