[PATCH 4/4] clk: tegra: Add support for the Tegra132 CAR IP block

Paul Walmsley
2015-01-09T20:52:31Z

Hi Thierry

On Fri, 9 Jan 2015, Thierry Reding wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:38:29PM -0800, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> >
> > This patch is based on several patches from others:
> >
> > 1. a patch from Peter De Schrijver:
> >
> > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1407.1/06094.html
> >
> > 2. a patch from Bill Huang ("clk: tegra: enable cclk_g at boot on
> > Tegra132"), and
> >
> > 3. a patch from Allen Martin ("clk: Enable tegra clock driver for
> > tegra132").
>
> Doesn't this technically require Signed-off-bys from each of the above,
> then?

I don't think so. Documentation/SubmittingPatches states:

---
The rules are pretty simple: if you can certify the below:

Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1

By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:

(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
have the right to submit it under the open source license
indicated in the file; or

(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
in the file; or

(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
it.

(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
are public and that a record of the contribution (including
all personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off)
is maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent
with this project or the open source license(s) involved.
---

My Signed-off-by: is based on paragraphs (a), (b), and (d).

The intention of my statement is to ensure that credit is appropriately
provided to everyone who I drew significant inspiration or code from, and
that such credit makes it into the official commits (e.g., is not dropped
when the patches are applied.) However, the patch that I sent is
differs from the patches that I reviewed while preparing it.

Of course, if anyone would like to add Acked-by or Reviewed-by tags, etc.,
or comment if I've misunderstood something technically etc., that's
definitely welcome.

> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra124.c
> [...]
> > +/**
> > + * tegra124_132_clock_init_pre - clock initialization preamble for T124/T132
> > + * @np: struct device_node * of the DT node for the SoC CAR IP block
> > + *
> > + * Register most of the clocks controlled by the CAR IP block, along
> > + * with a few clocks controlled by the PMC IP block. Everything in
> > + * this function should be common to Tegra124 and Tegra132. XXX The
> > + * PMC clock initialization should probably be moved to PMC-specific
> > + * driver code. No return value.
> > + */
> > +static void __init tegra124_132_clock_init_pre(struct device_node *np)
>
> I would've personally named this tegra124_clock_init_pre(). In the past
> we've named these functions after the first chip that needed them and if
> later chips remained compatible they would simply use the one from an
> earlier chip. That's consistent with the naming of compatible strings
> and doesn't require changes to the function names if yet another SoC
> generation were to need the same functionality.

Yes, I agree it's unwieldy. It would be nice to find some concise way to
refer to "the family of NVIDIA SoCs that includes T124 and T132". Maybe
tegra124_family_clock_init_pre() might be a better choice...

- Paul