Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: microchip: clk for 6.18 #1

Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: microchip: clk for 6.18 #1

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 16/09/2025 at 10:05, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> 
> Dear clock maintainers,
> 
> Here are the first clk changes for 6.18.
> I don't think they have conflict with changes for the deprecated round_rate()
> to determine_rate() topic.
> They are in linux-next for a couple of days.

But... this series depends on this patch:
https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250827145427.46819-4-nicolas.ferre@microchip.com

Which will be part of a pull-request to-be-sent soon to arm-soc (which 
is part of linux-next, so the build error doesn't appear there).

Once the pull-request is done, do you prefer that I do an immutable 
branch between CLK and ARM, that I queue this at91 PM patch into the clk 
pull-request or that everything goes through arm-soc?

Thanks to the kbuild test bot.
Regards,
   Nicolas

> Please pull. Thanks, best regards,
>    Nicolas
> 
> The following changes since commit 8f5ae30d69d7543eee0d70083daf4de8fe15d585:
> 
>    Linux 6.17-rc1 (2025-08-10 19:41:16 +0300)
> 
> are available in the Git repository at:
> 
>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/at91/linux.git tags/clk-microchip-6.18
> 
> for you to fetch changes up to e3130c2a9a0c8e549e044e659be6f762a1b1f725:
> 
>    ARM: at91: remove default values for PMC_PLL_ACR (2025-09-15 16:24:25 +0200)
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Microchip clock updates for v6.18
> 
> This update includes:
> - add one clock for sam9x75
> - new meaning for MCR register field in clk-master
> - use force-write to PLL update register to ensure
>    reliable programming sequence
> - update Analog Control Register (ACR) management to accommodate
>    differences across SoCs
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Balamanikandan Gunasundar (1):
>        clk: at91: sam9x7: Add peripheral clock id for pmecc
> 
> Cristian Birsan (2):
>        clk: at91: add ACR in all PLL settings
>        ARM: at91: remove default values for PMC_PLL_ACR
> 
> Nicolas Ferre (1):
>        clk: at91: clk-sam9x60-pll: force write to PLL_UPDT register
> 
> Ryan Wanner (1):
>        clk: at91: clk-master: Add check for divide by 3
> 
>   drivers/clk/at91/clk-master.c      |  3 ++
>   drivers/clk/at91/clk-sam9x60-pll.c | 82 +++++++++++++++++------------------
>   drivers/clk/at91/pmc.h             |  1 +
>   drivers/clk/at91/sam9x60.c         |  2 +
>   drivers/clk/at91/sam9x7.c          |  6 +++
>   drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c        |  4 ++
>   drivers/clk/at91/sama7g5.c         |  2 +
>   include/linux/clk/at91_pmc.h       |  2 -
>   8 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: microchip: clk for 6.18 #1

[Stephen Boyd]

Quoting Nicolas Ferre (2025-09-16 06:19:11)
> On 16/09/2025 at 10:05, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com wrote:
> > From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
> > 
> > Dear clock maintainers,
> > 
> > Here are the first clk changes for 6.18.
> > I don't think they have conflict with changes for the deprecated round_rate()
> > to determine_rate() topic.
> > They are in linux-next for a couple of days.
> 
> But... this series depends on this patch:
> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250827145427.46819-4-nicolas.ferre@microchip.com
> 
> Which will be part of a pull-request to-be-sent soon to arm-soc (which 
> is part of linux-next, so the build error doesn't appear there).
> 
> Once the pull-request is done, do you prefer that I do an immutable 
> branch between CLK and ARM, that I queue this at91 PM patch into the clk 
> pull-request or that everything goes through arm-soc?

Whatever is required to build the code should be included in the PR. If
the same commit goes into arm-soc tree that's OK, just make sure the
branches aren't broken if you checkout a commit anywhere along the
branch that is sent to clk or arm-soc trees. Broken includes
functionally broken.

Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: microchip: clk for 6.18 #1

[Nicolas Ferre]

Stephen,

On 17/09/2025 at 06:49, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Nicolas Ferre (2025-09-16 06:19:11)
>> On 16/09/2025 at 10:05, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com wrote:
>>> From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com>
>>>
>>> Dear clock maintainers,
>>>
>>> Here are the first clk changes for 6.18.
>>> I don't think they have conflict with changes for the deprecated round_rate()
>>> to determine_rate() topic.
>>> They are in linux-next for a couple of days.
>>
>> But... this series depends on this patch:
>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250827145427.46819-4-nicolas.ferre@microchip.com
>>
>> Which will be part of a pull-request to-be-sent soon to arm-soc (which
>> is part of linux-next, so the build error doesn't appear there).
>>
>> Once the pull-request is done, do you prefer that I do an immutable
>> branch between CLK and ARM, that I queue this at91 PM patch into the clk
>> pull-request or that everything goes through arm-soc?
> 
> Whatever is required to build the code should be included in the PR. If
> the same commit goes into arm-soc tree that's OK, just make sure the
> branches aren't broken if you checkout a commit anywhere along the
> branch that is sent to clk or arm-soc trees. Broken includes
> functionally broken.

Thanks for your quick response Stephen. v2 of the pull-request has just 
been sent.

Best regards,
   Nicolas