Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] clk: ralink: make system controller a reset provider

[Sergio Paracuellos]

Hi Greg,

On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 8:31 AM Sergio Paracuellos
<sergio.paracuellos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 5, 2022 at 3:55 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Sergio Paracuellos (2022-01-26 04:45:31)
> > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:14 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 01:08:52PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 1:06 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:49:26PM +0100, Sergio Paracuellos wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This patch series add minimal change to provide mt7621 resets properly
> > > > > > > defining them in the 'mediatek,mt7621-sysc' node which is the system
> > > > > > > controller of the SoC and is already providing clocks to the rest of
> > > > > > > the world.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is shared architecture code for all ralink platforms in 'reset.c'
> > > > > > > file located in 'arch/mips/ralink' but the correct thing to do to align
> > > > > > > hardware with software seems to define and add related reset code to the
> > > > > > > already mainlined clock driver.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > After this changes, we can get rid of the useless reset controller node
> > > > > > > in the device tree and use system controller node instead where the property
> > > > > > > '#reset-cells' has been added. Binding documentation for this nodeq has
> > > > > > > been updated with the new property accordly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This series also provide a bindings include header where all related
> > > > > > > reset bits for the MT7621 SoC are defined.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, please take a look to this review [0] to understand better motivation
> > > > > > > for this series.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regarding the way of merging this:
> > > > > > >  - I'd like patches 1 and 4 which are related going through staging tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Patches 1 and 4 now in the staging tree, thanks.
> > > > >
> > > > > Stephen wanted all to go through the CLK tree since PATCH 3 and 1 were
> > > > > also a dependency... Can we get all of them through the same tree,
> > > > > then? I am ok with both CLK or staging trees.
> > > >
> > > > That's fine with me if they all go through the CLK tree, but there will
> > > > be a merge issue that I already fixed up in my tree.  If you want me to
> > > > drop them, just let me know.
> > >
> > > Stephen, what do you prefer? Is it better all going through staging-tree then?
> > >
> >
> > Sure take them through staging tree.
> >
> > Acked-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Thanks, Stephen.
>
> Greg, can you please take remaining patches 2 and 3 through your tree, then?
>
> Thanks in advance for your time.

Please, let me know if you prefer me to resend the remaining two
patches with tags added to make this easier for you.

Best regards,
    Sergio Paracuellos

>
> Best regards,
>     Sergio Paracuellos