On 7/23/20 9:49 AM, Bin Meng wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 7:56 PM Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 7/23/20 7:49 AM, Sagar Kadam wrote: >>> Hello Sean, >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: U-Boot <u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de> On Behalf Of Sean Anderson >>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 9:21 PM >>>> To: u-boot@lists.denx.de >>>> Cc: Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com>; Rick Chen <rickche...@gmail.com>; >>>> Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com> >>>> Subject: [PATCH 5/6] riscv: Update Kendryte device tree for new CLINT >>>> driver >>>> >>>> [External Email] Do not click links or attachments unless you recognize the >>>> sender and know the content is safe >>>> >>>> AFAIK because the K210 clock driver does not come up until after >>>> relocation, the clint will always use the clock-frequency parameter. >>>> Ideally, it should update itself after relocation to take into account the >>>> actual CPU frequency. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Sean Anderson <sean...@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> arch/riscv/dts/k210.dtsi | 10 ++++++---- >>>> drivers/clk/kendryte/clk.c | 4 ++++ >>>> include/dt-bindings/clock/k210-sysctl.h | 1 + >>> >>> Can you please consider splitting the dt-bindings include into separate >>> patch >>> so as to avoid checkpatch warning. >> >> If you'd like. AFAIK this is mostly a kernel thing since dt-bindings >> often have separate maintainers than the rest of the series. Can anyone >> comment on whether this applies to U-Boot as well? > > If the changes are from upstream Linux kernel, it's fine to keep the > changes in the k210.dtsi. But if the changes are only needed in > U-Boot, as Sagar mentioned they should be in k210-uboot.dtsi.
Here the question is whether the patch should be split, not what file the changes should go in. At the moment, the dts is not synced between U-Boot and Linux for the K210, so there is no need to have a separate device tree file. --Sean
