On 09/04/2022 09:14, Conor Dooley wrote: > > > On 08/04/2022 16:29, Conor Dooley wrote: >> >> >> On 08/04/2022 15:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 08/04/2022 16:36, Conor Dooley wrote: >>>> Hey, >>>> As I mentioned in my fixes for 5.18 [0], found out that the reference >>>> clock for the rtc is actually missing from the clock driver (and the >>>> dt binding). >>>> >>>> Currently the mpfs clock driver uses a reference clock called the >>>> "msspll", set in the device tree, as the parent for the cpu/axi/ahb >>>> (config) clocks. The frequency of the msspll is determined by the FPGA >>>> bitstream & the bootloader configures the clock to match the bitstream. >>>> The real reference is provided by a 100 or 125 MHz off chip oscillator. >>>> >>>> However, the msspll clock is not actually the parent of all clocks on >>>> the system - the reference clock for the rtc/mtimer actually has the >>>> off chip oscillator as its parent. >>>> >>>> This series enables reading the rate of the msspll clock, converts >>>> the refclock in the device tree to the external reference & adds >>>> the missing rtc reference clock. >>>> >>>> I assume it is okay not to add fixes tags for the rtc dt binding? >>>> Since the clock was previously missing, the binding is wrong, but >>>> idk if that qualifies as a fix? >>> >>> Usually ABI breakage, even if accepted, should be be tagged as fix >>> because it is clearly then a break of other peoples' trees... >>> >> >> That means either a) do something messy in the clock driver or b) mark >> the whole series as fixes (and roll it into [0]). >> >> The second option seems far more sensible to me, do you agree? > > Having thought some more about it, patches 2, 3 and the rtc part of 7 > should be moved into [0] since they're fixing a binding that only > arrived in 5.18-rc1. > For the rest, make the second part of the reg optional and if it doesnt > exist just return prate for the msspll clock? Ah, so this got into v5.18-rc1? I think I missed that information from the patches description and focused on backporting to stables. Then indeed you could combine all fixes together, mark them with Fixes. Best regards, Krzysztof
