Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] Use "ref" clocks from firmware for DSI PLL VCO parent

[Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>]

Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2021-12-15 12:02:37)
> On 14/12/2021 22:46, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On 2021-09-18 16:40:38, Marijn Suijten wrote:
> >> On 2021-09-14 14:44:01, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>> Quoting Marijn Suijten (2021-09-11 06:19:19)
> >>>> All DSI PHY/PLL drivers were referencing their VCO parent clock by a
> >>>> global name, most of which don't exist or have been renamed.  These
> >>>> clock drivers seem to function fine without that except the 14nm driver
> >>>> for sdm6xx [1].
> >>>>
> >>>> At the same time all DTs provide a "ref" clock as per the requirements
> >>>> of dsi-phy-common.yaml, but the clock is never used.  This patchset puts
> >>>> that clock to use without relying on a global clock name, so that all
> >>>> dependencies are explicitly defined in DT (the firmware) in the end.
> >>>
> >>> I can take this through clk tree if it helps avoid conflicts. There are
> >>> some other patches to sdm660.c in the clk tree already.
> >>
> >> Might be useful to maintain proper ordering of these dependent patches
> >> but it's up to Dmitry and Rob to decide, whom I'm sending this mail
> >> directly to so that they can chime in.
> > 
> > Dependent patch [3] landed in 5.15 and [2] made it into 5.16 rc's - is
> > it time to pick this series up and if so through what tree?
> 
> I'd also second the idea of merging these two patches into 5.17.
> Most probably it'd be easier to merge both of them through the clk tree. 
> Or we can take the first patch into drm-msm (but then we'd have a 
> dependency between msm-next and clk-qcom-next).
> 
> Bjorn, Stephen?
> 

Sounds fine to take through clk tree.