Re: [PATCH v6 00/52] Introduce memory interconnect for NVIDIA Tegra SoCs

Dmitry Osipenko
2020-10-27T20:31:39Z

27.10.2020 11:52, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 10:14:10PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 26.10.2020 18:08, Krzysztof Kozlowski пишет:
>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:16:43AM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> This series brings initial support for memory interconnect to Tegra20,
>>>> Tegra30 and Tegra124 SoCs.
>>>>
>>>> For the starter only display controllers and devfreq devices are getting
>>>> interconnect API support, others could be supported later on. The display
>>>> controllers have the biggest demand for interconnect API right now because
>>>> dynamic memory frequency scaling can't be done safely without taking into
>>>> account bandwidth requirement from the displays. In particular this series
>>>> fixes distorted display output on T30 Ouya and T124 TK1 devices.
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> You introduced in v6 multiple new patches. Could you describe the
>>> dependencies, if any?
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> The v6 dropped some older patches and replaced them with the new
>> patches. Previously I wanted to postpone the more complex changes for
>> later times, like supporting OPP tables and DVFS, but then the review
>> started to take more time than was expected and there was enough time to
>> complete those features.
>>
>> There are five basic sets of patches:
>>
>> 1. DT bindings
>> 2. DT changes
>> 3. SoC, clk and memory
>> 4. devfreq
>> 5. DRM
>>
>> Each set could be applied separately.
>>
>> Memory patches have a build dependency on the SoC and clk patches.
>>
>> The "tegra-mc: Add interconnect framework" and "Add and use
>> devm_tegra_get_memory_controller()" are the root build dependencies for
>> all memory/ patches. Other patches are grouped per SoC generation
>> (Tegra20/30/124), patches within a SoC-gen group are interdependent.
>>
>> I suppose the best variant would be to merge the whole series via
>> tegra-tree in order to preserve logical order of the patches. Although,
>> merging each set of patches separately also should be okay to do.
>
> Thanks for explanation. I already have three patches for Tegra MC (and
> probably two more will be respun) so this might be conflict-prone. The
> easiest in such case is to provide me soc and clk patches on the branch,
> so I could keep all Tegra MC together.

Okay, but those T210 patches don't touch the same code, neither same
source files. For now there should be no merge conflicts.