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

Hi Krzysztof,

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 12:12, Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 30/06/2026 13:02, Peter Griffin wrote:
> > Hi Alim,
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 at 04:53, Alim Akhtar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Peter Griffin <[email protected]>
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2026 6:02 PM
> >>> To: Denzeel Oliva <[email protected]>
> >>> Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <[email protected]>; Sylwester Nawrocki
> >>> <[email protected]>; Chanwoo Choi <[email protected]>;
> >>> Alim Akhtar <[email protected]>; Michael Turquette
> >>> <[email protected]>; Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>; Brian
> >>> Masney <[email protected]>; Rob Herring <[email protected]>; Conor
> >>> Dooley <[email protected]>; [email protected]; linux-
> >>> [email protected]; [email protected]; linux-arm-
> >>> [email protected]; [email protected]
> >>> 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 <[email protected]>
> >>> 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 <[email protected]>
> >>>> ---
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Peter Griffin <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>> @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.

Urgh, I see. My suggestion kind of assumed the downstream vendor tree
had been pushed to a public Git repository, similar to how Google used
to push their gs101 sources, for example:
https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/google-modules/raviole-device/+/refs/heads/android-gs-raviole-mainline/drivers/soc/google/cal-if/

A link to a tarball for sure isn't as easy to just click through and
take a look which is what I was hoping to achieve. Thanks for the link
though, maybe that will come in useful at some point.

Peter