On 7/23/20 9:49 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
Hi Sean,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/23/20 7:49 AM, Sagar Kadam wrote:
Hello Sean,
-----Original Message----- From: U-Boot u-boot-bounces@lists.denx.de On Behalf Of Sean Anderson Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:21 PM To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Cc: Bin Meng bmeng.cn@gmail.com; Rick Chen rickchen36@gmail.com; Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com Subject: [PATCH 5/6] riscv: Update Kendryte device tree for new CLINT driver
[External Email] Do not click links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe
AFAIK because the K210 clock driver does not come up until after relocation, the clint will always use the clock-frequency parameter. Ideally, it should update itself after relocation to take into account the actual CPU frequency.
Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson seanga2@gmail.com
arch/riscv/dts/k210.dtsi | 10 ++++++---- drivers/clk/kendryte/clk.c | 4 ++++ include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-sysctl.h | 1 +
Can you please consider splitting the dt-bindings include into separate patch so as to avoid checkpatch warning.
If you'd like. AFAIK this is mostly a kernel thing since dt-bindings often have separate maintainers than the rest of the series. Can anyone comment on whether this applies to U-Boot as well?
If the changes are from upstream Linux kernel, it's fine to keep the changes in the k210.dtsi. But if the changes are only needed in U-Boot, as Sagar mentioned they should be in k210-uboot.dtsi.
Here the question is whether the patch should be split, not what file the changes should go in. At the moment, the dts is not synced between U-Boot and Linux for the K210, so there is no need to have a separate device tree file.
--Sean