[PATCH 5/6] riscv: Update Kendryte device tree for new CLINT driver

[Sagar Kadam]

Hi Sean/Bin,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2020 7:30 PM
> To: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>
> Cc: Sagar Kadam <sagar.kadam at sifive.com>; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Rick
> Chen <rickchen36 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [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
> 
> On 7/23/20 9:49 AM, Bin Meng wrote:
> > Hi Sean,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sean Anderson <seanga2 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/23/20 7:49 AM, Sagar Kadam wrote:
> >>> Hello Sean,
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: U-Boot <u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de> On Behalf Of Sean
> >>>> Anderson
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:21 PM
> >>>> To: u-boot at lists.denx.de
> >>>> Cc: Bin Meng <bmeng.cn at gmail.com>; Rick Chen
> >>>> <rickchen36 at gmail.com>; Sean Anderson <seanga2 at 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 at 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.
> 
Sorry if my statement turned confusing, (I didn't mean it to be into k210-uboot.dtsi), what I meant
 to say is we might consider splitting the dt-bindings header change into another patch within this series.
cause the checkpatch show's a warning as below:
#/scripts/checkpatch.pl 0005-riscv-Update-Kendryte-device-tree-for-new-CLINT-driv.patch 
WARNING: DT binding docs and includes should be a separate patch. See: Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt

total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 checks, 49 lines checked

i.e IIUC,  the changes in include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-sysctl.h is expected to be as a separate patch 
within this series. So the split of this patch can be as

-Patch 5 can be :" riscv: Update Kendryte device tree for new CLINT driver" 
arch/riscv/dts/k210.dtsi                | 10 ++++++----
drivers/clk/kendryte/clk.c              |  4 ++++

-Patch 6 can be something like: "dt-bindings: clk: k210: add clint clock identifier"  
include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-sysctl.h |  1 +

Thanks & BR,
Sagar

> --Sean