From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([2001:67c:670:201:290:27ff:fe1d:cc33]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.90_1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1hVBn1-0004Jt-1I for barebox@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 27 May 2019 09:19:33 +0000 References: <20190521155626.9906-1-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> <20190521155626.9906-2-a.fatoum@pengutronix.de> From: Ahmad Fatoum Message-ID: Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 11:19:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "barebox" Errors-To: barebox-bounces+u.kleine-koenig=pengutronix.de@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] clk: imx6: remove quirky clk_set_parent(LDB_diN_sel, pll5_video_div) To: Andrey Smirnov Cc: Barebox List , Raphael Poggi , pza@pengutronix.de On 27/5/19 10:02, Andrey Smirnov wrote: > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:49 AM Ahmad Fatoum wrote: >> >> Hello Andrey, >> >> On 27/5/19 09:28, Andrey Smirnov wrote: >>>>>> Generally, affected boards have been broken since day 1, because the LVDS output >>>>>> would've locked up every blue moon or so. If this patch breaks them, they're just >>>>>> more reliably broken. :-) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There's a world of difference between not working every once in a blue >>>>> moon and not working from a first boot. >>>> >>>> Ye, the latter one can be dealt with on-the-spot. The other is much more costly to >>>> fix. >>>> >>> >>> Here's a different perspective: If you needed to make an urgent phone >>> call, would you rather you phone didn't work every once in a blue moon >>> or be broken for the get go? >> >> The expectation is that the phone's basic operation was verified beforehand >> and a once-in-a-blue-moon kind of issue is easier missed than an always >> occurring one. >> >> Do I take this as you voicing support of v1 of the patchset? >> > > No, not at all. Both versions are fine as far as I am concerned and > should proceed on whatever course you guys decided on. This particular > conversation started with you trying to convince me that "generally" s/generally/strictly speaking/, would maybe have conveyed the intention better. > your patch didn't break the board and it was always broken, just less > reliably so. My point is that this is just a borderline exercise in > sophistry and if a thing went from "working 99% of the time" to "not > working at all" after a change, that change broke that thing. Even if > the change itself is a good thing and definitely should be done. I didn't mean to downplay the patch's breakage. It's just that arguing in favor of it is easier when the aspect was partially broken before. Thanks again, Ahmad > > Thanks, > Andrey Smirnov > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox