Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1ebfbbec-d5cf-c6ac-2cf1-eab970903500@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 15:29:15 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory: tegra: Add dummy implementation on Tegra194
To:     Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>
Cc:     Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>, Sumit Gupta <sumitg@nvidia.com>,
        linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230629160132.768940-1-thierry.reding@gmail.com>
 <1fd1d5d7-7296-0e62-9f65-7347ac0f0500@linaro.org> <ZKwCYjKXtuDsOF9E@orome>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZKwCYjKXtuDsOF9E@orome>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/07/2023 15:06, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2023 at 12:10:43PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 29/06/2023 18:01, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> With the introduction of commit 9365bf006f53 ("PCI: tegra194: Add
>>> interconnect support in Tegra234"), the PCI driver on Tegra194 and later
>>> requires an interconnect provider. However, a provider is currently only
>>> exposed on Tegra234 and this causes PCI on Tegra194 to defer probe
>>> indefinitely.
>>>
>>> Fix this by adding a dummy implementation on Tegra194. This allows nodes
>>> to be provided to interconnect consumers, but doesn't do any bandwidth
>>> accounting or frequency scaling.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 9365bf006f53 ("PCI: tegra194: Add interconnect support in Tegra234")
>>> Reported-by: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@nvidia.com>
>>
>> Applied with checkpatch warning. Please be sure you run checkpatch
>> before sending the patches.
> 
> Are you referring to the Reported-by/Closes complaint? 

Yes.

> I didn't include
> a URL here because this came from an internal test report and there's no
> corresponding public reference.

Ah, ok, apologies for pickiness then. :)

> 
> I suppose I could've left out the Reported-by altogether.

I think it is fine. Checkpatch warning is just advisory.


Best regards,
Krzysztof