From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91E9428A72F; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 22:01:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784325694; cv=none; b=RaylzC3orY8ZLYuN61DkAOubB1RlGaV1F1NYvKNr1EZrLn6aVsGdo+bTZ82gVIAxSgO5lAaXzXDtpIrLGAQzPN5wJA31Tj/xRB9BX0N1Dbnx/3T/P+WrFpH2F+c7cTJxFnk5Q3hqHzrBNRBZwq5YAr/NYbmXuxRiptA0uA7WsUw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1784325694; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ibP4H/kTc6QpQES5l0G9CzhAJHDJoBKAVcsqYj265Qk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=OWsCGMi8Hpu4Y9HDTxixP9vku70O1dYPgExtCWNbx6iz8qhQrL/8EivDpCs40z8SFhzhQOveqfUONkOgJn+8R+87yHvCiZXSPDHf5TTJW4wDm0Fnce+HqcErW69LuPuWll6iko5a3M8HL1YCan5nelbBPScoB6rdhH2l3kC/MOw= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b=liTaZx7p; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=arm.com header.i=@arm.com header.b="liTaZx7p" Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D51A1476; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:01:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ryzen.lan (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [172.31.20.19]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF9F83F66F; Fri, 17 Jul 2026 15:01:27 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1784325691; bh=ibP4H/kTc6QpQES5l0G9CzhAJHDJoBKAVcsqYj265Qk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=liTaZx7pXEUG/d54Fz0HF4kPrlEEhQ5Soeb/Xz0YcG0QXdu2r82YoCE3lKDkxRQd6 0LZp9/3XsmIkKdbtG/VTXeMs7YQWwAL+tEEbZfcfbnJR+dQcWrBBOfRxwvoUd7nb3L L3QtznJYV6bxhepnmiy6xjDB14+QPAO3G6X5XzTs= Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 23:57:37 +0200 From: Andre Przywara To: Enzo Adriano Cc: Junhui Liu , Brian Masney , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Chen-Yu Tsai , Jernej Skrabec , Samuel Holland , Philipp Zabel , Rob Herring , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Paul Walmsley , Palmer Dabbelt , Albert Ou , Alexandre Ghiti , Richard Cochran , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/8] clk: sunxi-ng: a733: Add PRCM CCU Message-ID: <20260717235737.6e69ba19@ryzen.lan> In-Reply-To: <20260702165944.828550-1-enzo.adriano.code@gmail.com> References: <20260310-a733-clk-v1-3-36b4e9b24457@pigmoral.tech> <20260702165944.828550-1-enzo.adriano.code@gmail.com> Organization: Arm Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.4.0 (GTK 3.24.31; x86_64-slackware-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 12:59:44 -0400 Enzo Adriano wrote: Hi Enzo, > Register check for the PRCM driver against the public A733 User Manual > V0.92, chapter 4.2.5: all 41 entries I could extract (13 reset-map > entries, 18 bus gates, 10 mod/mux clocks) match the manual's register > offsets and bit positions. No discrepancies found in this patch. > > For what it's worth, we have also exercised the R-domain at runtime on a > Radxa Cubie A7S (r-ahb/r-apb0 rates with live consumers on r-pinctrl, > r-rtc and the PPU, bus-r-cpucfg via its critical flag), with no > misbehavior attributable to the PRCM model. many thanks for doing this, but please add proper tags to your replies, otherwise this won't be carried over to new revision, and your work gets lost in the cracks - as it happened this time. So you now would need to redo the review on v2. I'd suggest to compare the patches between their RFC and v2 version, and if you agree that the changes don't touch anything you checked (register offsets, bit positions), then you can just (re-)post your review with the proper tags - and a brief list of what you checked, as you did in the RFC reply. Thanks, Andre