Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2021-04-01 13:58:28) > On Thu, 1 Apr 2021 at 22:57, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2021-03-27 01:13:56) > > > Hi Tanya, > > > > > > On Sat, 27 Mar 2021 at 04:49, Taniya Das <tdas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dmitry, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the patch for cleanup. > > > > It is okay to remove TEST source, but you can still keep the sleep clock > > > > source as it could be still connected to certain RCGs and could be used > > > > to derive low frequencies if required. > > > > > > > > As these sources are generated from the HW plans it would be good if we > > > > keep them as they are except the TEST source. > > > > > > Please note that I've barely removed the unused enum entry, which is > > > not used in any of clock parent maps. So I'd suggest to either add it > > > to relevant clock parent maps and to the videocc bindings or to drop > > > unused enum entry. > > > > > > > Is this going to be resent? > > Is there a reason to resend the patches? > I'm not removing any actual clock sources, only unused(!) enum entries > are removed. No functional changes. > That's fine if we're just removing enums. I was hoping Taniya would respond with a reviewed-by tag or at least to this thread so we know everyone is OK.
