[alsa-devel] [PATCH v6 1/3] clk: x86: Add Atom PMC platform clocks

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Pierre-Louis Bossart
<pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for an update I will comment all the patches.
>> Here we start.
>
>
> Thanks Andy for the review. Two quick comments before going further in the
> details later.
>
>>
>>> The BayTrail and CherryTrail platforms provide platform clocks
>>> through their Power Management Controller (PMC).
>>>
>>> The SoC supports up to 6 clocks (PMC_PLT_CLK[5:0]) with a
>>> frequency of either 19.2 MHz (PLL) or 25 MHz (XTAL) for BayTrail
>>> and a frequency of 19.2 MHz (XTAL) for CherryTrail. These clocks
>>> are available for general system use, where appropriate, and each
>>> have Control & Frequency register fields associated with them.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Irina Tirdea <irina.tirdea at intel.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre-Louis Bossart
>>> <pierre-louis.bossart at linux.intel.com>
>>
>>
>> Who is the actual author? SoB I guess should be either the author, or
>> 1st, 2nd, ..., last one who is submitter.
>
>
> I ported the initial code from Android legacy stuff and Irina ported the
> functionality to the clk framework. It seems appropriate to have both
> signed-offs?

Yes, but as I mentioned:
1) submitter goes last;
2) SoB lines and Author(s) should reflect actual state of the sources.
If patch has 2 SoBs I'm expecting see different names of Authors in
the source code. *Or* in some cases it's possible to explain in the
commit message why you have former SoB and for what the credit that
person(s) get.

>>> +#include <linux/platform_data/x86/clk-byt-plt.h>
>
>
> This was a suggestion of Darren Hart in agreement with Thomas Gleixner.
> see
> http://mailman.alsa-project.org/pipermail/alsa-devel/2016-October/113936.html

Hmm... Thanks for pointing to this I didn't aware about such details.

But... I still insist that is not a platform data at all in both cases.

For clock I would suggest include/linux/clk/ with x86_ prefix.
For the rest I have no strong opinion except trying to avoid
platform_data wording in the path as much as possible.

As an example I could recall DMA engine subsystem where we have

include/linux/platform_data/dma-*.h

and

include/linux/dma/*.h

So, this sounds more to me as

include/linux/x86/pmc_atom.h

> Darren, did we get your proposal right?

>>
>> Is it indeed platform data? I would not create platform_data/x86
>> without strong argument.
>> Perhaps include/linux/clk/x86_pmc.h? (Yes, I know about clk-lpss.h
>> which is old enough and was basically first try of clk stuff on x86)

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko