Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] JH7110 PMU Support

[Conor Dooley]

Hey Walker,

On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 03:42:56PM +0800, Walker Chen wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> This patchset adds PMU (Power Management Unit) controller driver for the
> StarFive JH7110 SoC. In order to meet low power requirements, PMU is
> designed for including multiple PM domains that can be used for power
> gating of selected IP blocks for power saving by reduced leakage
> current. The first patch adds device tree binding for PM domain provider
> and consumer. The second patch adds pmu driver and support JH7110 SoC.
> The last patch adds device node about pmu to JH7110 dts. 
> 
> The series has been tested on the VisionFive 2 boards which equip with
> JH7110 SoC and works normally.

For the series:
Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I'm hoping that someone with knowledge of the power APIs will take a
look now that the driver looks to be in a pretty good state (to my naive
eyes at least).

> Changes in v3:
> - Rebased on tag v6.1.

FYI, please pick something more recent than that.
Ideally, the last -rc1, which in this case is v6.2-rc1.
It's helpful to do this, as when I went to apply your patch, there were
some conflicts that needed to be sorted out. Because of your prerequisite
patches, the usual `b4` commands would not usable. E.g.

b4 am -3 20230116074259.22874-1-walker.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Analyzing 4 messages in the thread
Checking attestation on all messages, may take a moment...
---
  [PATCH v3 1/3] dt-bindings: power: Add starfive,jh7110-pmu
  [PATCH v3 2/3] soc: starfive: Add StarFive JH71XX pmu driver
  [PATCH v3 3/3] riscv: dts: starfive: add pmu controller node
---
Total patches: 3
Preparing fake-am for v3: JH7110 PMU Support
  ERROR: Could not find matching blob for MAINTAINERS (85e8f83161d7)
         If you know on which tree this patchset is based,
         add it as a remote and perform "git remote update"
         in order to fetch the missing objects.

Fortunately, this is just a driver addition so despite `b4` not
helping it was easy to resolve but for other patches in the future,
this may not be the case.

Assuming the dt maintainers are happy with the binding, ping me in 2
weeks if no-one else has commented and I'll apply patches 1 & 2.

Thanks,
Conor.

> base-commit: 830b3c68c1fb1e9176028d02ef86f3cf76aa2476
> prerequisite-patch-id: 54ce870d6ea747466474b5d4105cfbc05e1b01ab
> prerequisite-patch-id: e8dd8258a4c4062eee2cf07c4607d52baea71f3a
> prerequisite-patch-id: 057fa35870d8d7d22a57c13362588ffb9e9df316
> prerequisite-patch-id: 102368a6ff799c4cb639aed513deff09c1839161
> prerequisite-patch-id: 7c1a50a37919fedbbd336ca5dec295ac63c2a89d
> prerequisite-patch-id: a5d9e0f7d4f8163f566678894cf693015119f2d9
> prerequisite-patch-id: 87cb528acd9a7f1ffe7475d7261553f6a4de5753
> prerequisite-patch-id: 417736eb958e1158c60a5ed74bc2350394321a80
> prerequisite-patch-id: a137312ca162b5712e28719f77d0da78e9fdd778
> prerequisite-patch-id: f7c548b4619f491ce27f319242c4e3685c76173b
> prerequisite-patch-id: 4d90febab2fb7928f50a73104e7454312b9ce6c8
> prerequisite-patch-id: 645a807d50e0e56593ffdc6c3b50ea54a230827a
> prerequisite-patch-id: 165f8cd740ae60585d22c95b99a0689084d468e3
> prerequisite-patch-id: 480d910deccadc2947b3318c3c13dfa0882c8e0d
> prerequisite-patch-id: 1d1cb90ec12dfc9312e448759c7cab89f2bc6394
> prerequisite-patch-id: 5f539ac7c96023b36489c6da7c70c31eaf64a25b
> prerequisite-patch-id: 6bb9a780c62af3bcc2368dfd20303c7b1bc91e23
> prerequisite-patch-id: 258ea5f9b8bf41b6981345dcc81795f25865d38f
> prerequisite-patch-id: 8b6f2c9660c0ac0ee4e73e4c21aca8e6b75e81b9
> prerequisite-patch-id: e3b986b9c60b2b93b7812ec174c9e1b4cfb14c97
> prerequisite-patch-id: 2e03eeb766aefd5d38f132d091618e9fa19a37b6
> prerequisite-patch-id: e0ba7af0f8d3d41844da9fbcba14b548cbc18f55
> prerequisite-patch-id: c1f8603e58c64828d0f36deac9b93c24289d8e05

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature