[Bulk] [PATCH] timer: vt8500: Move timer code to drivers/clocksource

[olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson)]

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 06:47:35PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 18:13 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Mon, 2013-01-14 at 18:09 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > This patch moves arch-vt8500/timer.c into drivers/clocksource and
> > > updates the necessary Kconfig/Makefile options.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Tony Prisk <linux@prisktech.co.nz>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Kconfig       |    1 +
> > >  arch/arm/mach-vt8500/Makefile      |    2 +-
> > >  arch/arm/mach-vt8500/common.h      |    1 -
> > >  arch/arm/mach-vt8500/timer.c       |  184 ------------------------------------
> > >  arch/arm/mach-vt8500/vt8500.c      |    1 +
> > >  drivers/clocksource/Kconfig        |    3 +
> > >  drivers/clocksource/Makefile       |    1 +
> > >  drivers/clocksource/vt8500_timer.c |  184 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  include/linux/vt8500_timer.h       |   22 +++++
> > >  9 files changed, 213 insertions(+), 186 deletions(-)
> > >  delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-vt8500/timer.c
> > >  create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/vt8500_timer.c
> > >  create mode 100644 include/linux/vt8500_timer.h
> > 
> > Darn.. forgot the -m again. I'll await your feedback regarding the
> > basing of the patch first (and any other feedback), then I'll redo it
> > with the correct stats.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Tony P
> 
> Oh grr.. forget this completely. It doesn't take into account the
> patches I already sent for WM8850.
> 
> I guess it needs to be based on timer/cleanup + vt8500/wm8x50.
> 
> Need a little advise on how to handle this one please :)

The normal way to handle these kind of dependencies is to base them on merges
of the needed branches. Based on the later email, you only seem to need
timer/cleanup, but if you would have needed the other one, then you'd merge
that on top of timer/cleanup, and then add your patches.

Of course, ideally you would do the cleanup, then add the wm8x50 features,
but in reality work doesn't always pan out that way, so you end up with
cleanups that depend on including new features in the same (sweeping)
cleanup since they have already been merged. That's when things sometimes
get hairy, and we need to start a second cleanup branch that's "after"
the feature branch in the sequence of topics. But it should be rare,
and in your case it seems like it wasn't needed.


-Olof