Re: [PATCH v8 2/2] memory: mtk-smi: mt8188: Add SMI reset and clamp for MT8188

On 24/07/2025 09:59, Friday Yang (杨阳) wrote:

On Thu, 2025-07-24 at 09:08 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

External email : Please do not click links or open attachments until
you have verified the sender or the content.


On 24/07/2025 03:49, Friday Yang (杨阳) wrote:

quoted

On Thu, 2025-06-12 at 17:16 +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:

quoted

External email : Please do not click links or open attachments
until
you have verified the sender or the content.


On 21/05/2025 08:33, Friday Yang wrote:

quoted

From: "Friday Yang" <redacted>

To prevent handling glitch signals during MTCMOS on/off
transitions,
SMI requires clamp and reset operations. Parse the reset
settings
for
SMI LARBs and the clamp settings for the SMI Sub-Common.
Register
genpd callback for the SMI LARBs located in image, camera and
IPE
subsystems, and apply reset and clamp operations within the
callback.

Signed-off-by: Friday Yang <redacted>
Reviewed-by: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <
angelogioacchino.delregno@collabora.com>
Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>

You did not respond to previous review. Sending the same while
ignoring
previous review is obvious NAK.

Apologies for missing the message. In the v6 patch, I replaced
'pm_runtime_enable' with 'devm_pm_runtime_enable'. You pointed out
that
this change might alter the cleanup order and potentially introduce
errors.

v6:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20250408033206.12176-3-friday.yang@mediatek.com/ (local)

quoted

quoted

Therefore, in the v7 patch, I reverted this change and continued
using
'pm_runtime_enable' in the SMI driver. However, I did not include a
clear description of the changes between v6 and v7 in the cover
letter.

v7:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/9f01a9a4-89b2-4bfc-97cd-827be989ef16@kernel.org/ (local)

quoted

quoted

In the v8 patch, I have added a description in the cover letter.
This series just add functions for SMI clamp and not change
anything
else. Is this acceptable to you?

That was month ago. Nothing form this thread is in my memory, nothing
is
in the mailbox. There is no cover letter to find anymore.

Anyway, you did not respond to the actual comment and you send the
same.
Now you respond... to something else still ignoring the comment about
fake tags.

I will not be wasting more time on this patchset.

Changes v7:
- Remove the 'devm_pm_runtime_enable' change.

Above is the tag you ask. You are right, the 'devm_pm_runtime_enable'
tag I mentionded in the patchset v6 is truly a fake tag. So please

This is a function. Not a tag. I asked about tag.

ignore this tag. What I intended to explain here was that I decided not
to use 'devm_pm_runtime_enable' to replace 'pm_runtime_enable'
functions. Unfortunately, the fake tag didn't explain this clearly in
the changelog, which was my fault. To address this, I updated patchset
v8 to include an explanation.

In patchset v6, I replaced 'pm_runtime_enable' with
'devm_pm_runtime_enable'. However, in patchset v8, I reverted this
change and included the reason for this decision in the changelog.
Apologize for the delay and the trouble again.

Nothing above is related to my question about the
fake/invented/questioned tag.

Best regards,
Krzysztof