From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com (Marc Gonzalez) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 14:53:18 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v9 1/2] arm-soc: Import initial tango4 device tree In-Reply-To: References: <564C94A5.4060301@sigmadesigns.com> <564C94FD.60607@sigmadesigns.com> <564CA880.1030502@sigmadesigns.com> Message-ID: <564DD44E.4010804@sigmadesigns.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Olof Johansson wrote: > >> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >> >>> Marc Gonzalez wrote: >>> >>>> M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: >>>> >>>>> Marc Gonzalez wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> + clkgen: clkgen at 10000 { >>>>>> + compatible = "sigma,tango4-clkgen"; >>>>>> + reg = <0x10000 0x40>; >>>>>> + clocks = <&xtal>; >>>>>> + clock-output-names = "cpuclk", "sysclk"; >>>>>> + #clock-cells = <1>; >>>>>> + }; >>>>> >>>>> Would you please consider using my clock driver that matches the actual >>>>> hardware, supports all the clock outputs required for USB, SATA, etc, >>>>> and works on tango3 as well? >>>> >>>> I was hoping to take baby steps to work up to a fully-functional port. >>>> The first step (in my mind) is this submission: a minimal port which >>>> only requires the two "main" clocks. >>>> >>>> The next step will add to the minimal port by supporting as many >>>> peripherals as possible, as well as their required clocks. >>> >>> But the code already exists. Why start over? "La perfection est atteinte, non pas lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien ? ajouter, mais lorsqu'il n'y a plus rien ? retirer." For example, what is the point of not ignoring sysclk_premux, when the boot loader has always hard-coded "PLL1 drives sys_clk, PLL2 drives cd_clk". Having one clk driver for tango3, and another for tango4 allows you to submit your own tango3 clk driver, and I can then ignore all the insane tango3 clk legacy, and focus on the tango4 clean-ups. Would that work for you? (BTW, are you aware that the clk maintainers will NAK your clk driver in its current form, based on the fact that they insist on a single node for the entire clkgen block?) >> M?ns, I don't understand your role in this. Can you clarify? > > Oh, I'm just the guy who did all the work and then got screwed over by > Sigma. Here's the sequence of events, to the best of my recollection. In 2010, you hacked the Popcorn Hour C-200 (Tango3 SoC) In 2014-11, I mentioned on LAKML that I planned to upstream Sigma's kernel In 2014-12, you pushed your tango3 port to github (3.18 at the time IIRC) https://github.com/mansr/linux-tangox In late 2015-02, you blogged about your work http://hardwarebug.org/2015/02/26/popcorn-hour-revisited/ I contacted you the next day, and you offered your services. You met management in late March. Then radio silence for several months. Sometime in July, I was told the deal had fallen apart :-( >> If you've already done a port, why haven't you contributed it >> yourself? > > Because it's not yet in a shape to be contributed, just like Marc's > isn't. Are you saying the DT needs to be perfect on the first submission? Has this been true for other mach? >> Why are you driving Marc's work from the back seat like this instead >> of submitting your own work? > > I have submitted bits and pieces. It's a slow process. Indeed. Especially when a maintainer NAKs a patch because one used 'unsigned' instead of 'unsigned int'. Regards.