Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] Add pl031 RTC support for Hi6220 | From | Wei Xu <> | Date | Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:13:52 +0100 |
| |
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@lixom.net> wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:55 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> 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? Thanks!
Best Regards, Wei Xu
> > Arnd > > . >
| |