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

[Krzysztof Kozlowski]

On 30/06/2026 13:02, Peter Griffin wrote:
> 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.

cal-if as vendor tree? Some contributors just base their work on
downstream GPL-compliance dumps from opensource.samsung.com, so not sure
how that link would work.

Best regards,
Krzysztof