Quoting Taniya Das (2020-07-21 10:26:53) > Hi Stephen, > > Thanks for the review. > > On 7/21/2020 1:21 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > >> +... > >> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sc7180.h > >> b/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sc7180.h > >> index 992b67b..bdf43adc 100644 > >> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sc7180.h > >> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/qcom,gcc-sc7180.h > >> @@ -138,6 +138,7 @@ > >> #define GCC_MSS_Q6_MEMNOC_AXI_CLK 128 > >> #define GCC_MSS_SNOC_AXI_CLK 129 > >> #define GCC_SEC_CTRL_CLK_SRC 130 > >> +#define GCC_LPASS_CFG_NOC_SWAY_CLK 131 > >> > >> /* GCC resets */ > >> #define GCC_QUSB2PHY_PRIM_BCR 0 > > > > This hunk should be in the next patch. Oh but then that patch should come > > before this one so the binding can use it. Either way, shouldn't be part > > of this patch. > > > > > We had a problem with the bot complaining about the clock handles being > used in the example. > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/devicetree-bindings/patch/[email protected]/ > > Thus I have kept the GCC bindings in the same patch. >
Ah ok. Well I'll fix it when you resend to fix the comment on patch 4.
