2020-06-23 07:49:22

by Anand Moon

Subject: [PATCH] Revert "usb: dwc3: exynos: Add support for Exynos5422 suspend clk"

This reverts commit 07f6842341abe978e6375078f84506ec3280ece5.

Since SCLK_SCLK_USBD300 suspend clock need to be configured
for phy module, I wrongly mapped this clock to DWC3 code.

Cc: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <[email protected]>
---
drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c | 9 ---------
1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c
index 48b68b6f0dc8..90bb022737da 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c
@@ -162,12 +162,6 @@ static const struct dwc3_exynos_driverdata exynos5250_drvdata = {
.suspend_clk_idx = -1,
};

-static const struct dwc3_exynos_driverdata exynos5420_drvdata = {
- .clk_names = { "usbdrd30", "usbdrd30_susp_clk"},
- .num_clks = 2,
- .suspend_clk_idx = 1,
-};
-
static const struct dwc3_exynos_driverdata exynos5433_drvdata = {
.clk_names = { "aclk", "susp_clk", "pipe_pclk", "phyclk" },
.num_clks = 4,
@@ -184,9 +178,6 @@ static const struct of_device_id exynos_dwc3_match[] = {
{
.compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-dwusb3",
.data = &exynos5250_drvdata,
- }, {
- .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-dwusb3",
- .data = &exynos5420_drvdata,
}, {
.compatible = "samsung,exynos5433-dwusb3",
.data = &exynos5433_drvdata,
--
2.27.0

2020-06-23 09:22:58

by Krzysztof Kozlowski

Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "usb: dwc3: exynos: Add support for Exynos5422 suspend clk"

On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 09:46, Anand Moon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> This reverts commit 07f6842341abe978e6375078f84506ec3280ece5.
>
> Since SCLK_SCLK_USBD300 suspend clock need to be configured
> for phy module, I wrongly mapped this clock to DWC3 code.
>
> Cc: Felipe Balbi <[email protected]>
> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/usb/dwc3/dwc3-exynos.c | 9 ---------
> 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-)

But why was this patch applied in the first place? It did not pass the
review. For the v3 I replied:
"This patchset should not be applied. As of now, it is not needed and
not justified."
There were no acks and no positive reviews.

My comments from previous versions of this patchset were not properly addressed.

So here - yes, makes sense to revert it as it should have never been applied.

Best regards,
Krzysztof