[PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: r8a77965: add FDP1 device nodes
From: Hoan Nguyen An
Signed-off-by: Hoan Nguyen An
---
arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi | 10 ++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
index 9c4f405..bef519f 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
@@ -1578,6 +1578,16 @@
status = "disabled";
};
+ fdp1@fe94 {
+ compatible = "renesas,fdp1";
+ reg = <0 0xfe94 0 0x2400>;
+ interrupts = ;
+ clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 119>;
+ power-domains = <&sysc R8A77965_PD_A3VP>;
+ resets = <&cpg 119>;
+ renesas,fcp = <&fcpf0>;
+ };
+
fcpf0: fcp@fe95 {
compatible = "renesas,fcpf";
reg = <0 0xfe95 0 0x200>;
--
2.7.4
Re: [1/2] arm64: dts: r8a77965: add FDP1 device nodes
Laurent-san, Simon-san > You're missing a commit message. I agree that for simple patches like this > one > the subject line often contains enough information, but adding a commit > message is still a good practice that we try to enforce through the kernel. ... > Yes, can do. I understand! Thank you very much for your reviews and comments!
Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: r8a77965: add FDP1 device nodes
Hello Nguyen An,
Thank you for the patch.
On Friday, 24 August 2018 07:52:28 EEST Nguyen An Hoan wrote:
> From: Hoan Nguyen An
You're missing a commit message. I agree that for simple patches like this one
the subject line often contains enough information, but adding a commit
message is still a good practice that we try to enforce through the kernel.
For instance, looking at git history for r8a7796, you could use
"The r8a77965 has a single FDP1 instance."
> Signed-off-by: Hoan Nguyen An
Apart from that,
Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart
Simon, could you update the commit message when taking this patch in your
tree, to avoid the need for a v2 ?
> ---
> arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi | 10 ++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
> b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi index 9c4f405..bef519f 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
> @@ -1578,6 +1578,16 @@
> status = "disabled";
> };
>
> + fdp1@fe94 {
> + compatible = "renesas,fdp1";
> + reg = <0 0xfe94 0 0x2400>;
> + interrupts = ;
> + clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 119>;
> + power-domains = <&sysc R8A77965_PD_A3VP>;
> + resets = <&cpg 119>;
> + renesas,fcp = <&fcpf0>;
> + };
> +
> fcpf0: fcp@fe95 {
> compatible = "renesas,fcpf";
> reg = <0 0xfe95 0 0x200>;
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: r8a77965: add FDP1 device nodes
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:45:52AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hello Nguyen An,
>
> Thank you for the patch.
>
> On Friday, 24 August 2018 07:52:28 EEST Nguyen An Hoan wrote:
> > From: Hoan Nguyen An
>
> You're missing a commit message. I agree that for simple patches like this
> one
> the subject line often contains enough information, but adding a commit
> message is still a good practice that we try to enforce through the kernel.
> For instance, looking at git history for r8a7796, you could use
>
> "The r8a77965 has a single FDP1 instance."
>
> > Signed-off-by: Hoan Nguyen An
>
> Apart from that,
>
> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart
>
> Simon, could you update the commit message when taking this patch in your
> tree, to avoid the need for a v2 ?
Yes, can do.
Can I confirm that it is safe, from a regression point of view,
to apply this patch without patch 2/2?
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi | 10 ++
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi index 9c4f405..bef519f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77965.dtsi
> > @@ -1578,6 +1578,16 @@
> > status = "disabled";
> > };
> >
> > + fdp1@fe94 {
> > + compatible = "renesas,fdp1";
> > + reg = <0 0xfe94 0 0x2400>;
> > + interrupts = ;
> > + clocks = <&cpg CPG_MOD 119>;
> > + power-domains = <&sysc R8A77965_PD_A3VP>;
> > + resets = <&cpg 119>;
> > + renesas,fcp = <&fcpf0>;
> > + };
> > +
> > fcpf0: fcp@fe95 {
> > compatible = "renesas,fcpf";
> > reg = <0 0xfe95 0 0x200>;
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Laurent Pinchart
>
>
>
Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: r8a77965: add FDP1 device nodes
Hi Simon, On Monday, 27 August 2018 15:57:05 EEST Simon Horman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:45:52AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Friday, 24 August 2018 07:52:28 EEST Nguyen An Hoan wrote: > > > From: Hoan Nguyen An > > > > You're missing a commit message. I agree that for simple patches like this > > one the subject line often contains enough information, but adding a > > commit message is still a good practice that we try to enforce through > > the kernel. For instance, looking at git history for r8a7796, you could > > use > > > > "The r8a77965 has a single FDP1 instance." > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hoan Nguyen An > > > > Apart from that, > > > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart > > > > Simon, could you update the commit message when taking this patch in your > > tree, to avoid the need for a v2 ? > > Yes, can do. > > Can I confirm that it is safe, from a regression point of view, > to apply this patch without patch 2/2? As far as I know it is safe, yes. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart
Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: dts: r8a77965: add FDP1 device nodes
On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 12:56:18PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Monday, 27 August 2018 15:57:05 EEST Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 11:45:52AM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Friday, 24 August 2018 07:52:28 EEST Nguyen An Hoan wrote: > > > > From: Hoan Nguyen An > > > > > > You're missing a commit message. I agree that for simple patches like this > > > one the subject line often contains enough information, but adding a > > > commit message is still a good practice that we try to enforce through > > > the kernel. For instance, looking at git history for r8a7796, you could > > > use > > > > > > "The r8a77965 has a single FDP1 instance." > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Hoan Nguyen An > > > > > > Apart from that, > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart > > > > > > Simon, could you update the commit message when taking this patch in your > > > tree, to avoid the need for a v2 ? > > > > Yes, can do. > > > > Can I confirm that it is safe, from a regression point of view, > > to apply this patch without patch 2/2? > > As far as I know it is safe, yes. Thanks, applied for v4.20.
