Quoting Marijn Suijten (2021-09-02 06:05:34) > On 2021-09-01 20:46:34, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Marijn Suijten (2021-09-01 01:57:15) > > > On 2021-08-31 22:35:56, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Marijn Suijten (2021-08-30 11:24:45) > > > > > The DSI PHY/PLL was relying on a global "xo" clock to be found, but the > > > > > real clock is named "xo_board" in the DT. The standard nowadays is to > > > > > never use global clock names anymore but require the firmware (DT) to > > > > > provide every clock binding explicitly with .fw_name. The DSI PLLs have > > > > > since been converted to this mechanism (specifically 14nm for SDM660) > > > > > and this transient clock can now be removed. > > > > > > > > > > This issue was originally discovered in: > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-msm/386db1a6-a1cd-3c7d-a88e-dc83f8a1be96@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > and prevented the removal of "xo" at that time. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Presumably this wants to go with the first one. > > > > > > What are you referring to with "the first one"? This patch can only go > > > in after patch 1/2 of this series, unless you are suggesting to squash > > > it with Bjorns cleanup and making sure that lands after the fix in the > > > DSI? > > > > The first patch in this series. > > Are you suggesting to squash this patch into the first patch in this > series? Note that the first patch touches drm/msm/dsi, the second > (this) patch touches clk/qcom. No.
