Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210503081334.17143-1-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20210503081334.17143-3-shawn.guo@linaro.org>
 <20210523060009.GA29015@dragon>
In-Reply-To: <20210523060009.GA29015@dragon>
From:   Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 20 Jun 2021 23:27:49 -0500
Message-ID: <CABb+yY3CA+gvRJi7nyA4wxwP3-XtbfDhq51eP8Q+vL7TbMncUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mailbox: qcom: Add MSM8939 APCS support
To:     Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Sivaprakash Murugesan <sivaprak@codeaurora.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>,
        Benjamin Li <benl@squareup.com>,
        Devicetree List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 1:00 AM Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 04:13:34PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > MSM8939 has 3 APCS instances for Cluster0 (little cores), Cluster1 (big
> > cores) and CCI (Cache Coherent Interconnect).  Although only APCS of
> > Cluster0 and Cluster1 have IPC bits, each of 3 APCS has A53PLL clock
> > control bits.  That said, we need to register 3 'qcom-apcs-msm8916-clk'
> > devices to instantiate all 3 clocks.  Let's use PLATFORM_DEVID_AUTO
> > rather than PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE for platform_device_register_data()
> > call.  Otherwise, the second A53PLL clock registration will fail due
> > to duplicate device name.
> >
> > [    0.519657] sysfs: cannot create duplicate filename '/bus/platform/devices/qcom-apcs-msm8916-clk'
> > ...
> > [    0.661158] qcom_apcs_ipc b111000.mailbox: failed to register APCS clk
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org>
> > Reviewed-by: Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
>
> Hi Jassi,
>
> Any comment on this patch?
>
1)  I was not on the CC list, so I don't have this patch in my mbox.
2)  Shouldn't this patch be broken into a fix and an enablement patch?

cheers.