Re: [PATCH v4 00/15] clk: qcom: Fix parenting for dispcc/gpucc/videocc

[Bjorn Andersson]

On Mon 03 Feb 11:41 PST 2020, Doug Anderson wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 11:30 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Douglas Anderson (2020-02-03 10:31:33)
> > >
> > >  .../devicetree/bindings/clock/qcom,gpucc.yaml | 72 --------------
> > >  ...om,dispcc.yaml => qcom,msm8998-gpucc.yaml} | 33 +++----
> > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sc7180-dispcc.yaml    | 84 ++++++++++++++++
> > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sc7180-gpucc.yaml     | 72 ++++++++++++++
> > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sc7180-videocc.yaml   | 63 ++++++++++++
> > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sdm845-dispcc.yaml    | 99 +++++++++++++++++++
> > >  .../bindings/clock/qcom,sdm845-gpucc.yaml     | 72 ++++++++++++++
> > >  ...,videocc.yaml => qcom,sdm845-videocc.yaml} | 27 ++---
> > >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sc7180.dtsi          | 47 +++++++++
> > >  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/sdm845.dtsi          | 28 +++++-
> >
> > I don't want to take patches touching dts/qcom/. These aren't necessary
> > to merge right now, correct? Or at least, they can go via arm-soc tree?
> 
> Right.  They can go later.
> 
> Specifically for sdm845 until the sdm845 patches lands the old dts
> trees will yell about the missing clocks, but it's not like they will
> compile fail.  Also the bindings themselves will validate fine.
> There's no other way forward, though, and the old bindings caused
> similar yells.
> 

Can you please help me parse this, will old DT cause complaints or will
it fail to boot?

> For sc7180 there's no usage of any of these clocks and this adds the
> first usage, so definitely no problem there.
> 
> Once you've landed then Bjorn or Andy can pick up the dts.
> 

Do I need to apply these after Stephen picks the driver patches? Or are
they simply nop until the driver patches lands?

Regards,
Bjorn