[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RESEND 1/2] usb: ehci-exynos: Make provision for vdd regulators
2015-06-08 13:21 GMT+09:00 Anand Moon <>:
> Hi Krzysztof ,
> On 8 June 2015 at 07:40, Krzysztof Kozlowski <> wrote:
>> On 07.06.2015 22:20, Anand Moon wrote:
>>> Facilitate getting required 3.3V and 1.0V VDD supply for
>>> EHCI controller on Exynos.
>>> With the patches for regulators' nodes merged in 3.15:
>>> c8c253f ARM: dts: Add regulator entries to smdk5420
>>> 275dcd2 ARM: dts: add max77686 pmic node for smdk5250,
>>> the exynos systems turn on only minimal number of regulators.
>>> Until now, the VDD regulator supplies were either turned on
>>> by the bootloader, or the regulators were enabled by default
>>> in the kernel, so that the controller drivers did not need to
>>> care about turning on these regulators on their own.
>>> This was rather bad about these controller drivers.
>>> So ensuring now that the controller driver requests the necessary
>>> VDD regulators (if available, unless there are direct VDD rails),
>>> and enable them so as to make them working.
>>> Signed-off-by: Vivek Gautam <>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anand Moon <>
>>> Cc: Jingoo Han <>
>>> Cc: Alan Stern <>
>>> ---
>>> Initial version of this patch was part of following series, though
>>> they are not dependent on each other, resubmitting after rebasing.
>> So you just took Vivek's patch along with all the credits... That is not
>> how we usually do this.
>> I would expect that rebasing a patch won't change the author unless this
>> is fine with Vivek.
> Sorry If I have done some mistake on my part.
> I just looked at below mail chain. Before I send it.

I don't get it. The patch you are referring to has a proper "From"
field. So please use it as an example.

> I don't want to take any credit out of it. I just re-base on the new kernel.
> I could not test this patch as it meant for exynos5440 boards.

Are you sure? I think the driver is used on almost all of Exynos SoCs
(Exynos4, Exynos5250, Exynos542x).

Untested code should not go to the kernel. Additionally you should
mark it as not-tested. Marking such patch as non-tested could help you
finding some independent tests (tests performed by someone else).

To summarize my point of view:
1. Unless Vivek's says otherwise, please give him the credits with
proper "from" field.
2. Issues mentioned in previous mail should be addressed (missing
IS_ERR(), how disabling the regulator during suspend affects waking
3. The patchset must be tested, even after rebasing.

Best regards,

 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-08 07:41    [W:0.051 / U:0.772 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site