[PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: exynosautov9: correct clock numbering of peric0/c1

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 28/06/2022 04:15, Chanho Park wrote:
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] dt-bindings: clock: exynosautov9: correct clock
>> numbering of peric0/c1
>>
>> On 27/06/2022 02:52, Chanho Park wrote:
>>> There are duplicated definitions of peric0 and peric1 cmu blocks.
>>> Thus, they should be defined correctly as numerical order.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 680e1c8370a2 ("dt-bindings: clock: add clock binding
>>> definitions for Exynos Auto v9")
>>> Signed-off-by: Chanho Park <chanho61.park at samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>>  .../dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h  | 56
>>> +++++++++----------
>>>  1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
>>> b/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
>>> index ea9f91b4eb1a..a7db6516593f 100644
>>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynosautov9.h
>>> @@ -226,21 +226,21 @@
>>>  #define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_8		28
>>>  #define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_9		29
>>>  #define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_10	30
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_11	30
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_0		31
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_1		32
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_2		33
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_3		34
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_4		35
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_5		36
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_6		37
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_7		38
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_8		39
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_9		40
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_10		41
>>> -#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_11		42
>>> +#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_IPCLK_11	31
>>> +#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_0		32
>>> +#define CLK_GOUT_PERIC0_PCLK_1		33
>>
>> Is this a fix for current cycle? If yes, it's ok, otherwise all other IDs
>> should not be changed, because it's part of ABI.
> 
> What is the current cycle? 5.19-rc or 5.20?
> I prefer this goes on 5.19-rc but if it's not possible due to the ABI breakage, I'm okay this can be going to v5.20.

The change was introduced indeed in v5.19-rc1, so this should go to
current cycle as well (v5.19) and your patch is fine.

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org>

Sylwester or Stephen,

Please kindly grab it for fixes.

Best regards,
Krzysztof