Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] clk: ralink: make system controller a reset provider

[Sergio Paracuellos]

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 3:55 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Sergio Paracuellos (2022-01-26 04:45:31)
> > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:14 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:08:52PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:06 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:49:26PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This patch series add minimal change to provide mt7621 resets properly
> > > > > > defining them in the 'mediatek,mt7621-sysc' node which is the system
> > > > > > controller of the SoC and is already providing clocks to the rest of
> > > > > > the world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is shared architecture code for all ralink platforms in 'reset.c'
> > > > > > file located in 'arch/mips/ralink' but the correct thing to do to align
> > > > > > hardware with software seems to define and add related reset code to the
> > > > > > already mainlined clock driver.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > After this changes, we can get rid of the useless reset controller node
> > > > > > in the device tree and use system controller node instead where the property
> > > > > > '#reset-cells' has been added. Binding documentation for this nodeq has
> > > > > > been updated with the new property accordly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This series also provide a bindings include header where all related
> > > > > > reset bits for the MT7621 SoC are defined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, please take a look to this review [0] to understand better motivation
> > > > > > for this series.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the way of merging this:
> > > > > >  - I'd like patches 1 and 4 which are related going through staging tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Patches 1 and 4 now in the staging tree, thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Stephen wanted all to go through the CLK tree since PATCH 3 and 1 were
> > > > also a dependency... Can we get all of them through the same tree,
> > > > then? I am ok with both CLK or staging trees.
> > >
> > > That's fine with me if they all go through the CLK tree, but there will
> > > be a merge issue that I already fixed up in my tree.  If you want me to
> > > drop them, just let me know.
> >
> > Stephen, what do you prefer? Is it better all going through staging-tree then?
> >
>
> Sure take them through staging tree.
>
> Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks, Stephen.

Greg, can you please take remaining patches 2 and 3 through your tree, then?

Thanks in advance for your time.

Best regards,
    Sergio Paracuellos