On 04.05.2018 13:40, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 01:55:37AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> Commit 4c9a27a6c66d ("ARM: tegra: Fix ULPI regression on Tegra20") changed >> "ulpi-link" clock from CDEV2 to PLL_P_OUT4. Turned out that PLL_P_OUT4 is >> the parent of CDEV2 clock and original clock setup of "ulpi-link" was >> correct. The reverted patch was fixing USB for one board and broke the >> other, now Tegra's clk driver correctly sets parent for the CDEV2 clock >> and hence patch could be reverted safely, restoring USB for all of the >> boards. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Tested-by: Marcel Ziswiler <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Tested-by: Marc Dietrich <marvin24@xxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/boot/dts/tegra20.dtsi | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > Is it still true that this patch alone fixes the known regression? I'm > just asking because the remainder of the series, even though it sounds > to be the right thing to do, is fairly big for a fix against v4.17. Yes, Marcel says that reverting just this patch works for him now. > So if this alone fixes the regression I think it'd be best to queue it > up for v4.17 and get the rest of the patches into v4.18. Sounds good. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html