Re: [PATCH 0/9] ARM: shmobile: r8a73a4/ape6evm multiplatform

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>]

Hi Simon,

On Friday 23 January 2015 13:23:04 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 12:39:07PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 10:59:27AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 01:51:37PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>> Hi Simon, Magnus,
> >>> 
> >>> This patch series transitions the r8a73a4/ape6evm platform to support
> >>> multiplatform only:
> >>>   - Add CCF information to DT,
> >>>   - Disable legacy clock if CCF is used,
> >>>   - Add Bus State Controller node, and move the Ethernet node to it,
> >>>   - Remove ape6evm-reference,
> >>>   - Remove ape6evm-legacy and legacy support code.
> >>> 
> >>> This series is based on renesas-drivers-2015-01-19-v3.19-rc5.
> >>> It depends on renesas-devel-20150119-v3.19-rc5 (code-wise) and
> >>> clk-shmobile-for-3.20 (functionality-wise), for which I've sent a pull
> >>> request to Mike Turquette yesterday.
> >>> 
> >>> All of this was untested by me due to lack of hardware.
> >>> As Mike had previously acked the r8a73a4 CCF implementation, it's safe
> >>> to apply after testing.
> >> 
> >> Hi Geert, Hi Ulrich,
> >> 
> >> thanks for all your good work in getting this together.
> >> I have tested this and queued it up for v3.21.
> >> 
> >> I plan to push it to my devel branch later today.
> >> I plan to push it to my next branch and thus linux-next once
> >> clk-shmobile-for-3.20 appears in a v3.20-rc.
> > 
> > For the record: Olof has asked for review comments for the BSC driver and
> > binding patches. Accordingly I have dropped them, and these patches which
> > depend on them, from next.
> 
> I have now had a chance to re-examine these patches and it seems to me that
> the first four patches of the series not depend on the BSC driver (or
> anything else).  With that in mind I have queued them up in a new
> r8a73a4-ccf-for-v3.21 branch which is present in
> renesas-devel-20150123-v3.19-rc5.
> 
> Please take a moment to see if what I have done makes sense to you.  In
> particular it would be nicer if these patches could go into 'regular'
> branches such as dt-for-v3.21 and soc-for-v3.21. However it seems to me
> that the SoC patch "ARM: shmobile: ape6evm: Disable legacy clock
> initialization" depends on the following two DT patche " "ARM: shmobile:
> r8a73a4: Common clock framework DT description".

I've noticed you have dropped the following patches from your devel branch:

clk: shmobile: div6: Avoid changing divisor in .disable()
clk: shmobile: Add r8a7793 support
clk: shmobile: r8a7793: document CPG clock support
clk: shmobile: r8a73a4 common clock framework implementation
clk: shmobile: Add r8a73a4 SoC to MSTP bindings
clk: shmobile: Add R-Car Gen2 RCAN clock support
clk: shmobile: Add R-Car Gen2 ADSP clock support

I don't see those patches queued in Mike Turquette's CCF tree.

How should they be handled, and do they need to be delayed to v3.21 ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart