From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gautam.vivek@samsung.com (Vivek Gautam) Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2015 10:58:47 +0530 Subject: [RESEND 1/2] usb: ehci-exynos: Make provision for vdd regulators In-Reply-To: References: <1433683242-3945-1-git-send-email-linux.amoon@gmail.com> <5574F97A.5030104@samsung.com> Message-ID: <44B5E2FDCD3244AAA418BB8EC28FEA25@sisodomain.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Monday, June 08, 2015 10:44 AM, "Krzysztof Kozlowski" wrote: my apologies for being late in replying to this thread. > 2015-06-08 13:21 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon : >> Hi Krzysztof , >> >> On 8 June 2015 at 07:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski >> wrote: >>> On 07.06.2015 22:20, Anand Moon wrote: >>>> Facilitate getting required 3.3V and 1.0V VDD supply for >>>> EHCI controller on Exynos. >>>> >>>> With the patches for regulators' nodes merged in 3.15: >>>> c8c253f ARM: dts: Add regulator entries to smdk5420 >>>> 275dcd2 ARM: dts: add max77686 pmic node for smdk5250, >>>> the exynos systems turn on only minimal number of regulators. >>>> >>>> Until now, the VDD regulator supplies were either turned on >>>> by the bootloader, or the regulators were enabled by default >>>> in the kernel, so that the controller drivers did not need to >>>> care about turning on these regulators on their own. >>>> This was rather bad about these controller drivers. >>>> So ensuring now that the controller driver requests the necessary >>>> VDD regulators (if available, unless there are direct VDD rails), >>>> and enable them so as to make them working. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam >>>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon >>>> Cc: Jingoo Han >>>> Cc: Alan Stern >>>> --- >>>> Initial version of this patch was part of following series, though >>>> they are not dependent on each other, resubmitting after rebasing. >>>> >>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-June/266418.html >>> >>> So you just took Vivek's patch along with all the credits... That is not >>> how we usually do this. >>> >>> I would expect that rebasing a patch won't change the author unless this >>> is fine with Vivek. >>> >> >> Sorry If I have done some mistake on my part. >> I just looked at below mail chain. Before I send it. >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-samsung-soc/msg44136.html > > I don't get it. The patch you are referring to has a proper "From" > field. So please use it as an example. > >> >> I don't want to take any credit out of it. I just re-base on the new >> kernel. Perhaps, you would have maintained the authorship ! >> I could not test this patch as it meant for exynos5440 boards. > > Are you sure? I think the driver is used on almost all of Exynos SoCs > (Exynos4, Exynos5250, Exynos542x). That's correct, as pointed by Krzysztof Kozlowski, the driver is same for Exynos4 and Exynos5 series of SoCs. > Untested code should not go to the kernel. Additionally you should > mark it as not-tested. Marking such patch as non-tested could help you > finding some independent tests (tests performed by someone else). > > To summarize my point of view: > 1. Unless Vivek's says otherwise, please give him the credits with > proper "from" field. > 2. Issues mentioned in previous mail should be addressed (missing > IS_ERR(), how disabling the regulator during suspend affects waking > up). > 3. The patchset must be tested, even after rebasing. Unfortunately, I got busy with a different project and lost track of the patches posted upstream. If it's not too late I can post a rebased version of the patch with previous review comments addressed. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof