Re: [PATCH 2/4] soc: amlogic: clk-measure: Add A1 and T7 support

[Jian Hu <jian.hu@amlogic.com>]

On 4/13/2026 5:24 PM, Neil Armstrong wrote:
> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>
> On 4/13/26 11:10, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 13/04/2026 10:21, Jian Hu wrote:
>>>
>>> On 4/12/2026 5:55 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> [ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
>>>>
>>>> On 10/04/2026 12:03, Jian Hu wrote:
>>>>> Add support for the A1 and T7 SoC family in amlogic clk measure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jian Hu <jian.hu@amlogic.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-clk-measure.c | 272 
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>    1 file changed, 272 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-clk-measure.c 
>>>>> b/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-clk-measure.c
>>>>> index d862e30a244e..083524671b76 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-clk-measure.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/soc/amlogic/meson-clk-measure.c
>>>>> @@ -787,6 +787,258 @@ static const struct meson_msr_id 
>>>>> clk_msr_s4[] = {
>>>>>
>>>>>    };
>>>>>
>>>>> +static struct meson_msr_id clk_msr_a1[] = {
>>>> And existing code uses what sort of array? Seems you send us 
>>>> obsolete or
>>>> downstream code.
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have checked the previous Amlogic SoC's commits. Such as Amlogic AXG,
>>> G12A, C3, S4.
>>>
>>> The clk_msr_xx entry is added after last SoC's array, sorted by
>>> submissin date rather than alphabetical order.
>>>
>>> So I place A1 and T7 after S4 accordingly.
>>>
>>>
>>> The A1 clock controller driver was already supported in
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230523135351.19133-7-ddrokosov@sberdevices.ru/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> It is also present in the mainline kernel:
>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/drivers/clk/meson/Kconfig#n113 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This clock measure IP is used to measure the internal clock paths
>>> frequencies,  and A1 clock controller driver was supported.
>>>
>>> Since the corresponding clock measure driver does not support A1 
>>> yet, So
>>> add A1 clk msr here.
>>
>> No, what qualifiers or keywords are used for existing arrays? IOW,
>> please investigate and understand why you are doing this very different
>> than existing code. Maybe because you sent us downstream, so you
>> replicated all other downstream issues.
>
> I see, the existing uses "static const struct".
>
> Jian, could to switch to that please ?
>
> Neil
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Krzysztof


Hi, Krysztof & neil


Got it. Thank you pointing out the missing "const".  I mistakenly 
thought it was an alphabetical order issue.

I will fix it in the next verion.


Best regards,

Jian