Re: [PATCH 04/20] arm64: dts: qcom: kaanapali: Add support for PCIe0 on Kaanapali

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 07/10/2025 10:24, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 06, 2025 at 11:23:23PM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 25/09/2025 09:17, Jingyi Wang wrote:
>>> From: Qiang Yu <qiang.yu@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>>
>>> Describe PCIe0 controller and PHY. Also add required system resources like
>>> regulators, clocks, interrupts and registers configuration for PCIe0.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Qiang Yu <qiang.yu@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jingyi Wang <jingyi.wang@oss.qualcomm.com>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/kaanapali.dtsi | 182 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>>  1 file changed, 181 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/kaanapali.dtsi b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/kaanapali.dtsi
>>> index b385b4642883..07dc112065d1 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/kaanapali.dtsi
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/kaanapali.dtsi
>>> @@ -452,7 +452,7 @@ gcc: clock-controller@100000 {
>>>  			clocks = <&bi_tcxo_div2>,
>>>  				 <0>,
>>>  				 <&sleep_clk>,
>>> -				 <0>,
>>
>>
>> Why are you removing lines which you just added? What sort of buggy
>> patch was before?
> 
> Weirdly enough, it's correct: this patch adds clock provider, which gets
> used by the GCC. You might argue about the split, but there is no bug
> here.


Yes, I argue about the split. This is new SoC, so any patch removing
something from previous patches means split was done wrongly.

It's just confusing and previous patch (the one with lines removed here)
just shows incomplete picture.

Best regards,
Krzysztof