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

Dmitry Baryshkov
2025-10-08T19:04:51Z

On Tue, Oct 07, 2025 at 10:46:29AM +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> 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.

I agree that the split is weird. But it's not buggy. Anyway, let's wait
for the next iteration, which will hopefully sort out everything.

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

--
With best wishes
Dmitry