Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] Add pl031 RTC support for Hi6220

From: John Stultz
Date: Mon Jul 11 2016 - 21:03:32 EST

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Wei Xu <xuwei5@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Arnd, Olof,
> On 06/07/2016 08:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 12:20:15 AM CEST John Stultz wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:55 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:48:43PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>>>>>> This patchset enables the pl031 RTC on the Hi6220 SoC.
>>>>>>> I'd like to submit it to be merged.
>>>>>>> Wei has acked the second patch (modulo a whitespace fix which
>>>>>>> I've included in this v3), so it seems like both could go
>>>>>>> through the clk tree.
>>>>>>> But Wei also seemed open to pulling in a clk tree branch
>>>>>>> as it goes through arm-soc.
>>>>>>> Michael/Stephen: If there's no other objections, could you
>>>>>>> queue the first patch and make it avilable via the branch for
>>>>>>> Wei, or just take both patches?
>>>>>> I happen to dread these kind of patchsets these days. There's added
>>>>>> dependencies across trees just because a defined name for the clock
>>>>>> number is added to a header file.
>>>>>> I much prefer to use numerical clocks for one release, and then once
>>>>>> everything is in, switch over to the defines in the DTS.
>>>>>> That way there are no dependencies, no need to setup a shared branch
>>>>>> for a simple 3-line patch, etc.
>>>>>> So, mind respinning the DTS piece?
>>>>> Huh..
>>>> Sorry if it appeared random, I've complained about it for a while to
>>>> submaintainers.
>>> No.. I get it, the cross-maintainer shared branch is complex enough to
>>> want to avoid. I figured it would be easier to just take a maintainer
>>> acked patch in via the clk tree, but its not my tree, so I'll leave it
>>> to you maintainers to resolve.
>> The question this raises is why that clock was missed the first time
>> around. I'd suggest whoever owns the clock driver can go through the
>> documentation again and look for others that may have been missed,
>> then send a patch to the driver to add *all* the missing ones for the
>> merge window, and one release later we add the driver depending on
>> previously unknown clocks.
> I have picked this patch based on the clk-hi6220-rtc which is based on
> 4.7-rc1 and am planning to send out the pull request which will distinguish
> the clk commits and dts commits.
> So should I continue to send out the pull request?

Hey Wei,
I chatted with Arnd on IRC and from that discussion it sounded like
the pull request including the single patch clk branch will be the way
to go on this one.

Arnd: Let me know if I'm miss-characterizing this. I just wanted to
make sure there wasn't further confusion what the next steps were.