RE: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: exynosautov9: correct clock numbering of peric0/c1

["Chanho Park" <chanho61.park@samsung.com>]

> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: exynosautov9: correct clock
> numbering of peric0/c1
> 
> On 28/06/2022 04:15, Chanho Park wrote:
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: exynosautov9: correct
> >> clock numbering of peric0/c1
> >>
> >> On 27/06/2022 02:52, Chanho Park wrote:
> >>> There are duplicated definitions of peric0 and peric1 cmu blocks.
> >>> Thus, they should be defined correctly as numerical order.
> >>>
> >>> Fixes: 680e1c8370a2 ("dt-bindings: clock: add clock binding
> >>> definitions for Exynos Auto v9")
> >>> Signed-off-by: Chanho Park <chanho61.park@samsung.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>  .../dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h  | 56
> >>> +++++++++----------
> >>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
> >>> b/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
> >>> index ea9f91b4eb1a..a7db6516593f 100644
> >>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
> >>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
> >>> @@ -226,21 +226,21 @@
> >>>  #define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_8		28
> >>>  #define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_9		29
> >>>  #define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_10	30
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_11	30
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_0		31
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_1		32
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_2		33
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_3		34
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_4		35
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_5		36
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_6		37
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_7		38
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_8		39
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_9		40
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_10		41
> >>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_11		42
> >>> +#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_11	31
> >>> +#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_0		32
> >>> +#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_1		33
> >>
> >> Is this a fix for current cycle? If yes, it's ok, otherwise all other
> >> IDs should not be changed, because it's part of ABI.
> >
> > What is the current cycle? 5.19-rc or 5.20?
> > I prefer this goes on 5.19-rc but if it's not possible due to the ABI
> breakage, I'm okay this can be going to v5.20.
> 
> The change was introduced indeed in v5.19-rc1, so this should go to
> current cycle as well (v5.19) and your patch is fine.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> 
> Sylwester or Stephen,
> 
> Please kindly grab it for fixes.

Hi Sylwester or Stephen,

Gently ping to not miss this in v5.19 rc cycle.
Below patch as well.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-clk/7415fba0-ac04-e764-aa46-2c63b8568ac3@gmail.com/

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Chanho Park