[PATCH v3 3/3] clk: samsung: exynos990: Fix PERIS gate clock parents

[Peter Griffin]

Hi Alim,

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 04:53, Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar at samsung.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin at linaro.org>
> > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 6:02 PM
> > To: Denzeel Oliva <wachiturroxd150 at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>; Sylwester Nawrocki
> > <s.nawrocki at samsung.com>; Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi at samsung.com>;
> > Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar at samsung.com>; Michael Turquette
> > <mturquette at baylibre.com>; Stephen Boyd <sboyd at kernel.org>; Brian
> > Masney <bmasney at redhat.com>; Rob Herring <robh at kernel.org>; Conor
> > Dooley <conor+dt at kernel.org>; linux-samsung-soc at vger.kernel.org; linux-
> > clk at vger.kernel.org; devicetree at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> > kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] clk: samsung: exynos990: Fix PERIS gate clock
> > parents
> >
> > Hi Krysztof & Denzeel,
> >
> > On Sat, 13 Jun 2026 at 13:36, Denzeel Oliva <wachiturroxd150 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Correct eight PERIS gate clock parents to match the hardware clock
> > > tree and reorder the GIC mux parents so mout_peris_bus_user is the
> > > default source.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Denzeel Oliva <wachiturroxd150 at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin at linaro.org>
> >
> > @Krysztof: I was thinking, maybe we should establish a new rule/best
> > practice for Samsung clock upstream submissions whereby patch
> > contributors should link to the downstream cal-if code for the SoC after the --
> > - line. That would make reviewing the patches' correctness a bit easier, as the
> > downstream cal-if code would be readily available to the reviewer.
> >
> We can leave this choice to the reviewer if they want to refer to downstream cal-if code.

Generally I would like to, but I also don't have time to hunt around
the internet for a downstream kernel tree. My rationale was that the
submitter is most likely to know where the downstream code is, and is
likely using it for the upstream clock implementation. So, linking to
it as part of the submission should hopefully be fairly easy.

If it is a Samsung SoC for which no public code is available that's
fine. I didn't intend this to be a hard requirement: "you can't
upstream x,y,z unless you link to the cal-if code". I meant it more as
"best practice/guidance"; if the cal-if code is publicly available,
linking to it would be a useful reference for reviewers.

Thanks,

Peter