Re: [PATCH 2/7] clk: tegra: Use common of_clk_init() function

[Prashant Gaikwad]

On Friday 25 January 2013 10:14 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 01/24/2013 04:57 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-01-24 11:32:37)
> > > On 01/24/2013 11:20 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> > > > Quoting Prashant Gaikwad (2013-01-04 18:44:48)
> > > > > On Friday 04 January 2013 10:00 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> > > > > > On 01/04/2013 12:00 AM, Prashant Gaikwad wrote:
> > > > > > > Use common of_clk_init() function for clocks initialization.
> > > > > > >    drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra20.c |    3 ++-
> > > > > > >    drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra30.c |    3 ++-
> > > > > > Oh, so this series is written assuming that the Tegra CCF rework is
> > > > > > already applied then? That makes the dependencies quite painful, since I
> > > > > > think we'll end up with the following order being needed:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) clk: Add composite clock type
> > > > > >      -> This would usually go through the clk tree.
> > > > > > 2) The Tegra CCF rework series
> > > > > >      -> This must go through the Tegra tree due to lots of dependencies
> > > > > >      and merge conflicts with other Tegra patches.
> > > > > > 3) This series
> > > > > >      -> This would usually go through the clk tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is it possible to re-order the dependencies as (1) (3) (2), so that Mike
> > > > > > can apply (1) and (3) to the clock tree, then I can use the clk tree as
> > > > > > the basis for a branch in the Tegra tree to apply (2) and all the other
> > > > > > Tegra patches that will conflict with (2)?
> > > > > If Mike approves the concept and implementation in (1) and (3) then I
> > > > > will repost (2) and (3) with dependencies re-ordered.
> > > > Patch (1) still has some unaddressed comments, and is not a real
> > > > dependency for this series.
> > > I assume "Patch (1)" refers to the list of series a couple emails above,
> > > not the first patch in the series you're replying to; that threw me for
> > > a moment.
> > >
> > > > Since all of the patches have received their
> > > > Tested-by's then I propose to merge all patches from this series into
> > > > clk-next, which exception of patch 2/7 (the Tegra patch).
> > > >
> > > > This reduces your Tegra CCF conversion dependencies and you can role the
> > > > necessary of_clk_init change into your Tegra CCF conversion branch (it
> > > > has my implicit Ack and can be taken through your tree).
> > > >
> > > > Let me know if this is OK for you.
> > > OK, I'm happy to merge your clock tree into the Tegra tree and then
> > > apply 2/7 on top of the Tegra CCF work.
> > Hmm, maybe the clk tree needs to be a dependency branch of arm-soc
> > again, as it has in the past.  Would that help with any Tegra merge
> > pain?
> Yes, I think that's what would end up happening if I merge the clk tree
> into the Tegra tree anyway.

Hi Mike,

Have you merged these patches for 3.9?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/