Re: [PATCH 1/7] clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: Fix CAL_L_VAL override for LUCID EVO PLL

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 03/04/2024 10:37, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 09:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski
> <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 02/04/2024 20:35, Ajit Pandey wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/31/2024 12:49 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 30/03/2024 19:28, Ajit Pandey wrote:
>>>>> In LUCID EVO PLL CAL_L_VAL and L_VAL bitfields are part of single
>>>>> PLL_L_VAL register. Update for L_VAL bitfield values in PLL_L_VAL
>>>>> register using regmap_write() API in __alpha_pll_trion_set_rate
>>>>> callback will override LUCID EVO PLL initial configuration related
>>>>> to PLL_CAL_L_VAL bit fields in PLL_L_VAL register.
>>>>>
>>>>> Observed random PLL lock failures during PLL enable due to such
>>>>> override in PLL calibration value. Use regmap_update_bits() with
>>>>> L_VAL bitfield mask instead of regmap_write() API to update only
>>>>> PLL_L_VAL bitfields in __alpha_pll_trion_set_rate callback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 260e36606a03 ("clk: qcom: clk-alpha-pll: add Lucid EVO PLL configuration interfaces")
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No blank lines between tags.
>>>>
>>>> Add Cc-stable tag.
>>>>
>>> Sure, will update in next series
>>>
>>>> Please do not combine fixes with new features.
>>>>  > Best regards,
>>>> Krzysztof
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually this fix is required for correct scaling for few frequencies in
>>> this patch series, hence combined them together and pushed this fix as
>>> first patch in series so that they get mainlined together and feature
>>> functionality will not get impacted.
>>
>> OK, that's fine but usual way is that such need is expressed in the
>> cover letter, so maintainer will know what to do. What if this patch
>> should go to fixes and rest normally to for-next? How do you expect
>> maintainer to apply the patch? Entire thread and then manually move the
>> commits? Why making it so complicated for the maintainers?
> 
> Huh? I think it's pretty normal to have fixes in front of the patch
> series. Having it in the middle would be troublesome indeed. You are
> the first person to complain.

No, I am not the first. It differs between subsystems and I do not
recall all folks, but the one person coming to my mind is Mark Brown who
expressed it numerous times.

Best regards,
Krzysztof