Hello Krzysztof,
On 12/08/2015 09:34 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08.12.2015 22:41, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On 12/08/2015 05:13 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>
>>> This looks like a very-non-atomic way of handling a change. You added
>>> opp tables to exynos5420 before so at that time they will be applied to
>>> Odroid XU3 family which uses different CPU order. After that you are
>>> fixing the tables to proper CPU order. Direct bisectability probably
>>> won't be an issue because all of DTS would go to separate branch... but
>>> the logic behind confuses.
>>>
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> I think this should be squashed into 3/8.
>>>
>>
>> I think the patch should be split in two changes, the CPUs device nodes
>> having the wrong clock for clusters is a bug and has to be fixed in a
>> patch before adding the OPP tables and the OPP tables changes should be
>> separated and merged with patch 3/8 as you suggest.
>
> I don't get the point about wrong clock (bug). Where is the bug? Beside
> of course what was introduced in 3/8 and it is not valid for reversed
> cluster order.
>
You are absolutely correct, for some reason I thought that the CLK_ARM_CLK
and CLK_KFC_CLK clocks were already defined in the cpu0 and cpu4 nodes from
exynos5420.dtsi and commit df09df6f9ac3 ("ARM: dts: add exynos5422-cpus.dtsi
to correct cpu order") missed that when reversing the cores for Exynos5422.
But on a second look to patch 3/8, I see that the clocks are defined in that
patch so I agree that $SUBJECT should just be squashed with 3/8 without doing
any split. Sorry for the noise.
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Best regards,
--
Javier Martinez Canillas
Open Source Group
Samsung Research America
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
