Re: [PATCH linux-next] clk: sparx5: Review changes
From: Arnd Bergmann
Date: Mon Jul 27 2020 - 16:12:09 EST
On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 9:39 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Quoting Arnd Bergmann (2020-07-27 05:02:56)
> > On Mon, Jul 27, 2020 at 1:22 PM Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This address the review comments for the sparx5 clk driver from Stephen
> > > Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >
> > > - Remove unused include of of_address.h
> > > - Remove unused member in s5_hw_clk struct
> > > - Changed type (to unsigned long) for freq in s5_pll_conf struct
> > > - Use .parent_data instead of looking up parent name
> > > - Use devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider
> > > - Some minor comsmetics
> > >
> > > The patch is intended for linux-next (incremental), as the original
> > > driver was already merged.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lars Povlsen <lars.povlsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Hi Lars, thank you for addressing these!
> > Generally speaking, you should avoid having patches that list a
> > number of unrelated things that are done by a single commit.
> > Splitting this up into six patches is probably a little too much,
> > but maybe you can find a better balance. What I'd like to see
> > is to split the purely cosmetic changes from those that might
> > actually change the behavior, and then for each patch that
> > changes something non-obvious, explain why this was done.
> Why was the clk driver merged to linux-next outside of the clk tree? Was
> there some sort of dependency?
I merged the entire series of the base platform support along with
a few core drivers. I had asked for the series to be submitted to
soc@xxxxxxxxxx after all parts had been reviewed, but I missed that
the clk driver was still missing maintainer review (I saw you had
reviewed some patches, but apparently that was just the binding,
not the driver).
I rebased the 'arm/newsoc' branch the other day to fix another mistake,
so if you prefer, I can rebase it again and drop the clk driver or
all the sparx5 patches.