Re: [PATCH RESEND v2 0/6] RK3576 OTP support

Heiko Stübner
2025-02-12T12:56:33Z

Am Mittwoch, 12. Februar 2025, 13:44:15 MEZ schrieb Nicolas Frattaroli:
> On Monday, 10 February 2025 23:45:04 Central European Standard Time Heiko
> Stuebner wrote:
> > This enables OTP support in the nvmem driver for rk3576.
> >
> > I expect to pick the clock patch (patch1) and the arm64-dts patch (patch6)
> > myself, after the nvmem-driver and -binding patches have been applied
> > (patches 2-5).
> >
> > But kept them together for people wanting to try this series.
> >
> > changes in v2:
> > - fix register constant in clock definition (Diederik)
> > - add patch to set limits on variant-specific clock-names
> > - use correct limits for clocks + resets on rk3576 binding
> >
> >
> > RESEND, because I messed up my git-send-email which caused it to include
> > the list of patches 2 times, duplicating everything :-( .
> >
> > Heiko Stuebner (6):
> > clk: rockchip: rk3576: define clk_otp_phy_g
> > nvmem: rockchip-otp: Move read-offset into variant-data
> > dt-bindings: nvmem: rockchip,otp: add missing limits for clock-names
> > dt-bindings: nvmem: rockchip,otp: Add compatible for RK3576
> > nvmem: rockchip-otp: add rk3576 variant data
> > arm64: dts: rockchip: add rk3576 otp node
> >
> > .../bindings/nvmem/rockchip,otp.yaml | 25 ++++++++++++
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/rockchip/rk3576.dtsi | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
> > drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-rk3576.c | 2 +
> > drivers/nvmem/rockchip-otp.c | 17 +++++++-
> > 4 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Hi Heiko,
>
> for the entire series:
>
> Tested-by: Nicolas Frattaroli <nicolas.frattaroli@collabora.com>
>
> OTPs show up on my Sige5 RK3576 board and read fine. Also compared the OTP
> nodes to downstream and the values look consistent with that. The OTPs aren't
> documented in the TRM I have, so unfortunately I can't cross-reference that.

thanks a lot for the testing :-)

> NB: patchwork's "Series" download for this series somehow lacks patch 2/6,
> which tripped me up at first. Not sure if that's a problem with patchwork or
> with how you sent the series out, but I thought I'd let others know who run
> into this.

It looks like patchwork had a bigger hickup with my series.
Looking at the cover-letter in the Rockchip area of patchwork, it is
missing _all_ patches attached to it [0].

At least on the mainling list, everything seems to have arrived ok [1],
so would assume that's a patchwork thing.

[0] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-rockchip/cover/20250210224510.1194963-1-heiko@sntech.de/
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250210224510.1194963-1-heiko@sntech.de/