On Mon, Jan 20, 2025 at 08:01:03PM +0800, Ziqi Chen wrote: > Hi Mani, > > Thanks for you review~ > > On 1/19/2025 3:11 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 05:11:42PM +0800, Ziqi Chen wrote: > > > From: Can Guo <quic_cang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > If OPP V2 is used, devfreq clock scaling may scale clock amongst more than > > > two freqs, > > > > 'amongst more than two freqs': I couldn't parse this. > > > > It means that the devfreq framework will tell UFS core driver the devfreq > freq, then UFS core driver will find the recommended freq from our freq > table based on the devfreq freq. For legacy mode , we can only have 2 > frequencies in the table. But if the OPP V2 is used, we can have 3 , 4 or > more freq tables. You can refer to my PATCH 8/8. > > > > so just passing up/down to vops clk_scale_notify() is not enough > > > to cover the intermediate clock freqs between the min and max freqs. Hence > > > pass the target_freq to clk_scale_notify() to allow the vops to perform > > > corresponding configurations with regard to the clock freqs. > > > > > > > Add a note that the 'target_freq' is not used in this commit. > > > > Sorry, I don't very understand this comment, I mentioned the "target_freq" > in the commit message, Could you let me know what note you want me do add? > > > > Co-developed-by: Ziqi Chen <quic_ziqichen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Ziqi Chen <quic_ziqichen@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Can Guo <quic_cang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Signed-off-by tag order is not correct here. This implies that Ziqi originally > > worked on it, then Can took over and submitted. But it seems the reverse. > > Thanks for your reminder. Is below tag order OK ? > Signed-off-by: Can Guo <quic_cang@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Co-developed-by: Ziqi Chen <quic_ziqichen@xxxxxxxxxxx> 'Co-developed-by' is not needed unless you also worked on the patch. I guess you are just sending the patch authored by Can, so you can drop this and keep your 'Signed-off-by' tag. - Mani -- மணிவண்ணன் சதாசிவம்
