Quoting Prashant Gaikwad (2013-01-31 20:49:47) > 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?
Yes, these have been sitting in clk-next for a few days now. Regards, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
