On 10/21/20 1:23 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 12:27:45AM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote: >> On 10/15/20 5:05 PM, Simon Glass wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>>>>> Add another flag to the DM core which could be assigned to drivers and >>>>>> which makes those drivers call their remove callbacks last, just before >>>>>> booting OS and after all the other drivers finished with their remove >>>>>> callbacks. This is necessary for things like clock drivers, where the >>>>>> other drivers might depend on the clock driver in their remove callbacks. >>>>>> Prime example is the mmc subsystem, which can reconfigure a card from HS >>>>>> mode to slower modes in the remove callback and for that it needs to >>>>>> reconfigure the controller clock. >>>> >>>> [...] >>>> >>>>>> arch/arm/lib/bootm.c | 1 + >>>>>> board/Marvell/octeontx2/board.c | 4 ++-- >>>>>> drivers/core/device-remove.c | 11 ++++++++--- >>>>>> drivers/core/root.c | 2 ++ >>>>>> drivers/core/uclass.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++------- >>>>>> include/dm/device.h | 4 ++++ >>>>>> include/dm/uclass-internal.h | 3 ++- >>>>>> test/dm/core.c | 21 ++++++++++++--------- >>>>>> test/dm/test-main.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++------------- >>>>>> 9 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> I remember seeing a similar patch before. Do you have a change log? >>>> >>>> Nothing changed since except for the octeon fix, I still require this >>>> patch in to correctly stop SD/MMC controller and then the clock before >>>> booting Linux. >>> >>> Did you see my comments on the previous version of the patch? These >>> need to be addressed. >> >> I believe all comments are addressed. What is the problem with this patch ? > > Um. This patch doesn't say "v2" or "v3" or anything, and you said the > only change you made since last posting was adding the octeon changes. > I see a bit of a thread in > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20200802150640.114716-1-marek.vasut+rene...@gmail.com/ > where Simon and Stefan expanded on things and no further follow up from > you. Did you address everything in that thread?
I think so.
