Am Dienstag, 19. Juni 2018, 10:07:26 CEST schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> Hi Boris,
>
>
> 2018-06-18 16:46 GMT+09:00 Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2018 09:09:02 +0200
> > Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> Am Freitag, 15. Juni 2018, 03:18:50 CEST schrieb Masahiro Yamada:
> >> > According to the Denali User's Guide, this IP needs three clocks:
> >> >
> >> > - clk: controller core clock
> >> >
> >> > - clk_x: bus interface clock
> >> >
> >> > - ecc_clk: clock at which ECC circuitry is run
> >> >
> >> > Currently, denali_dt.c requires a single anonymous clock and its
> >> > frequency. However, the driver needs to get the frequency of "clk_x"
> >> > not "clk". This is confusing because people tend to assume the
> >> > anonymous clock means the core clock. In fact, I got a report of
> >> > SOCFPGA breakage because the timing parameters are calculated based
> >> > on a wrong frequency.
> >> >
> >> > Instead of the cheesy implementation, the clocks in the real hardware
> >> > should be represented in the driver and the DT-binding.
> >> >
> >> > However, adding new clocks would break the existing platforms. For the
> >> > backward compatibility, the driver still accepts a single clock just as
> >> > before. If clk_x is missing, clk_x_rate is set to a hardcoded value.
> >> > This is fine for existing DT of Socionext UniPhier, and also fixes the
> >> > issue of Altera (Intel) SOCFPGA because both platforms use 200 MHz for
> >> > the bus interface clock.
> >> >
> >> > Fixes: 1bb88666775e ("mtd: nand: denali: handle timing parameters by setup_data_interface()")
> >> > Cc: linux-stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> #4.14+
> >> > Reported-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
> >> > Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
> >
> > Maybe a
> >
> > Tested-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
> >
> > ?
> >
> >> Reported-by: Philipp Rosenberger <p.rosenberger@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Should I replace your Reported-by by this one or simply add it?
Philipp deserves the Reported-by. :)
>
> I think it is good to have Reported-by
> both from Philipp and Richard.
Patch 1/3 unbreaks v4.14.x on my board.
Tested-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@xxxxxx>
Thanks,
//richard
