From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Olof Johansson Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] clk: exynos4: migrate to common clock framework Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:33:22 -0800 Message-ID: <20130102193322.GA6583@quad.lixom.net> References: <1356827621-27617-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20121230052953.GB20903@quad.lixom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f51.google.com ([209.85.220.51]:33456 "EHLO mail-pa0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752426Ab3ABTdN (ORCPT ); Wed, 2 Jan 2013 14:33:13 -0500 Received: by mail-pa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id fb11so8122093pad.38 for ; Wed, 02 Jan 2013 11:33:13 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Abraham Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, mturquette@linaro.org, kgene.kim@samsung.com, t.figa@samsung.com, sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 09:35:16PM -0800, Thomas Abraham wrote: > On 29 December 2012 21:29, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 04:33:29PM -0800, Thomas Abraham wrote: > >> Changes since v4: > >> - Rebased to linux-3.8-rc1. > >> > >> Changes since v3: > >> - Includes changes suggested by Tomasz Figa > >> > >> This patch series migrates the Samsung Exynos4 SoC clock code to adopt the > >> common clock framework. The use of Samsung specific clock structures has > >> been removed and all board support code has been updated. imx-style of > >> clock registration and lookup has been adopted for device tree based > >> exynos4 platforms. > > > > I'd prefer to see if exynos4 and 5 were kept common here, and both transitioned > > at the same time. Especially since there are no legacy boards for exynos5, it > > would mean you could have a very clean transition there. What's the plan to > > follow up with 5? > > Ok. I have been looking into Exynos4 since Mr. Kim was already onto > Exynos5 common clock. Sure, we could do a cleaner Exynos4/5 common > clock series for v3.9. That would let both exynos4/5 to be built > together which otherwise this patch series would not allow. Great, that sounds good. Regressing exynos 4+5 builds would definitely be a bad thing. In other words, it makes sense to hold off merging the exynos4 pieces until the 5 counterparts are ready. > > What are the plans to remove legacy board files on exynos4 at this time > > and switch them to DT-only? You could do it gradually like Stephen Warren > > did on Tegra, with hooks that call out to some of the legacy code, but > > configure the board through device tree and do away with the classic > > machine descriptors, etc. > > I did try this sometime back for exynos4210 based origen board. But > did not make much progress since certain portions require the older > samsung gpiolib support and exynos4210 mainline device tree support > has migrated to newer pinctrl framework. There is some work here to do > and I will work with Mr. Kim on this. Great, thanks. -Olof From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:33:22 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v5 00/12] clk: exynos4: migrate to common clock framework In-Reply-To: References: <1356827621-27617-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <20121230052953.GB20903@quad.lixom.net> Message-ID: <20130102193322.GA6583@quad.lixom.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 09:35:16PM -0800, Thomas Abraham wrote: > On 29 December 2012 21:29, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 04:33:29PM -0800, Thomas Abraham wrote: > >> Changes since v4: > >> - Rebased to linux-3.8-rc1. > >> > >> Changes since v3: > >> - Includes changes suggested by Tomasz Figa > >> > >> This patch series migrates the Samsung Exynos4 SoC clock code to adopt the > >> common clock framework. The use of Samsung specific clock structures has > >> been removed and all board support code has been updated. imx-style of > >> clock registration and lookup has been adopted for device tree based > >> exynos4 platforms. > > > > I'd prefer to see if exynos4 and 5 were kept common here, and both transitioned > > at the same time. Especially since there are no legacy boards for exynos5, it > > would mean you could have a very clean transition there. What's the plan to > > follow up with 5? > > Ok. I have been looking into Exynos4 since Mr. Kim was already onto > Exynos5 common clock. Sure, we could do a cleaner Exynos4/5 common > clock series for v3.9. That would let both exynos4/5 to be built > together which otherwise this patch series would not allow. Great, that sounds good. Regressing exynos 4+5 builds would definitely be a bad thing. In other words, it makes sense to hold off merging the exynos4 pieces until the 5 counterparts are ready. > > What are the plans to remove legacy board files on exynos4 at this time > > and switch them to DT-only? You could do it gradually like Stephen Warren > > did on Tegra, with hooks that call out to some of the legacy code, but > > configure the board through device tree and do away with the classic > > machine descriptors, etc. > > I did try this sometime back for exynos4210 based origen board. But > did not make much progress since certain portions require the older > samsung gpiolib support and exynos4210 mainline device tree support > has migrated to newer pinctrl framework. There is some work here to do > and I will work with Mr. Kim on this. Great, thanks. -Olof