Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:19:47 +0530 | From | Prashant Gaikwad <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/7] clk: tegra: Use common of_clk_init() function |
| |
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?
| |