From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 01/16] ARM: call clk_of_init from time_init Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:45:37 +0200 Message-ID: <201308291545.37520.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1376964271-22715-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <3837b119-baad-4e68-8805-2bc52c0135f9@DB9EHSMHS031.ehs.local> <521D2F1F.1070103@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:56316 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753288Ab3H2NqY (ORCPT ); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 09:46:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: <521D2F1F.1070103@gmail.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Sebastian Hesselbarth Cc: =?utf-8?q?S=C3=B6ren_Brinkmann?= , Russell King , linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org, kernel@stlinux.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 28 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > > This forces zynq to move some initialization our clock code relies on to > > init_irq(). Also, the current code already takes an approach of > > doing either common init or machine specific init. > > Soeren, > > you know that patch 16/16 takes care of zynq's clock init? > > It's your own patch you provided from the last RFC. Looking at it, it > moves zynq_sclr_init() to .init_irq and removes the call to > of_clk_init() from zynq_clock_init() which is called by > zynq_sclr_init(). > > Isn't that solving the above issues for mach-zynq? Please be careful with the patch ordering here. The patch series should be bisectable, i.e. no patch should ever knowingly break any of the platforms, with the fix getting added in a later patch. You should be able to do that by cleaning up all platforms to not rely on ordering first, then add this patch, and finally remove the other calls. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:45:37 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RFC v2 01/16] ARM: call clk_of_init from time_init In-Reply-To: <521D2F1F.1070103@gmail.com> References: <1376964271-22715-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <3837b119-baad-4e68-8805-2bc52c0135f9@DB9EHSMHS031.ehs.local> <521D2F1F.1070103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <201308291545.37520.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 28 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > > This forces zynq to move some initialization our clock code relies on to > > init_irq(). Also, the current code already takes an approach of > > doing either common init or machine specific init. > > Soeren, > > you know that patch 16/16 takes care of zynq's clock init? > > It's your own patch you provided from the last RFC. Looking at it, it > moves zynq_sclr_init() to .init_irq and removes the call to > of_clk_init() from zynq_clock_init() which is called by > zynq_sclr_init(). > > Isn't that solving the above issues for mach-zynq? Please be careful with the patch ordering here. The patch series should be bisectable, i.e. no patch should ever knowingly break any of the platforms, with the fix getting added in a later patch. You should be able to do that by cleaning up all platforms to not rely on ordering first, then add this patch, and finally remove the other calls. Arnd