On Thursday, April 2nd, 2026 at 4:22 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/04/2026 10:19, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2026 at 02:17:44AM +0000, Alexander Koskovich wrote: > >> Add GPU and GMU devicetree nodes for the Adreno 810 GPU found on > >> Qualcomm SM7635 (Milos) based devices. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexander Koskovich <[email protected]> > >> --- > >> arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos.dtsi | 148 > >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 148 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos.dtsi > >> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos.dtsi > >> index 621f05820826..a8feb0339804 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos.dtsi > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/qcom/milos.dtsi > >> @@ -7,6 +7,7 @@ > >> #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,milos-dispcc.h> > >> #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,milos-gcc.h> > >> #include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,milos-gpucc.h> > >> +#include <dt-bindings/clock/qcom,kaanapali-gxclkctl.h> > > > > Why? My next from 27th Match does not have Milos in that binding. Was it > > added? It's worth mentioning in commit msg. > > > > Now I checked in the cover letter - that patch was rejected. You cannot > depend on rejected patch and still claim that this patchset is ready for > merging. This patchset should be somehow marked that it depends on stuff > which is wrong, usually I recommend marking it as RFC with explanation > in cover letter WHY this is RFC (because it cannot be merged). I don't see where the gxclkctl milos patch was rejected, there were some minor comments that need to be addressed in a v2 though, is that what you mean by it being rejected? Will just mark v2 of this series as RFC. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Thanks, Alex
