From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/4] Samsung clock Exynos5260 support for v3.16 Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 15:07:44 -0700 Message-ID: <20140514220744.19795.64527@quantum> References: <1400090591-5064-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <5373CB1A.1040801@samsung.com> <20140514201313.19795.35617@quantum> <5373CFFE.1000209@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f50.google.com ([209.85.220.50]:44923 "EHLO mail-pa0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752502AbaENWHv convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 May 2014 18:07:51 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id fb1so159105pad.23 for ; Wed, 14 May 2014 15:07:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5373CFFE.1000209@gmail.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Figa , Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Quoting Tomasz Figa (2014-05-14 13:20:14) > Hi Mike, > > On 14.05.2014 22:13, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Kukjin Kim (2014-05-14 12:59:22) > >> On 05/15/14 03:03, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mike, > >> > >> I've talked to Tomasz about current samsung related clock stuff. Since > >> they are mostly having dependency on samsung tree now not clock core > >> stuff, so would be better if it could be sent to upstream via samsung > >> tree. And as you know, updating arch/arm/ and clock stuff are usually > >> required for adding new SoC or supporting CCF newly... > > > > The Samsung clk pull requests only touch two arch/arm Kconfig files and > > one dtsi file. That's not a lot of arch/arm churn. Is there a strong > > reason that this needs to go through the samsung/arm-soc trees? > > Otherwise it should continue to go through the clk tree. > > Obviously they are patches for Samsung clock drivers. ;) > > The issue here is that there is a number of patches already merged in > Samsung tree on which the patches discussed here depend. OK, I think I misread the original email. I thought you were asking for future pull requests to go through the samsung tree, but you only mean the ones in this thread. No problem there. Acked-by: Mike Turquette Regards, Mike > > > > >> > >> How do you think? Basically I need your agreement for it. > > > > Based on the above pull requests I do not see the need for changing how > > code gets merged. > > As long as there are no dependencies on arch code and series being > applied do not touch arch code, this is perfectly fine. Unfortunately > this is rarely the case, at least for Samsung platforms and at least for > now. After we finish with arch clean-up and move all code to appropriate > subsystems, it should become easier, though. > > Best regards, > Tomasz From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette) Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 15:07:44 -0700 Subject: [GIT PULL 1/4] Samsung clock Exynos5260 support for v3.16 In-Reply-To: <5373CFFE.1000209@gmail.com> References: <1400090591-5064-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <5373CB1A.1040801@samsung.com> <20140514201313.19795.35617@quantum> <5373CFFE.1000209@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20140514220744.19795.64527@quantum> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Quoting Tomasz Figa (2014-05-14 13:20:14) > Hi Mike, > > On 14.05.2014 22:13, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Kukjin Kim (2014-05-14 12:59:22) > >> On 05/15/14 03:03, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mike, > >> > >> I've talked to Tomasz about current samsung related clock stuff. Since > >> they are mostly having dependency on samsung tree now not clock core > >> stuff, so would be better if it could be sent to upstream via samsung > >> tree. And as you know, updating arch/arm/ and clock stuff are usually > >> required for adding new SoC or supporting CCF newly... > > > > The Samsung clk pull requests only touch two arch/arm Kconfig files and > > one dtsi file. That's not a lot of arch/arm churn. Is there a strong > > reason that this needs to go through the samsung/arm-soc trees? > > Otherwise it should continue to go through the clk tree. > > Obviously they are patches for Samsung clock drivers. ;) > > The issue here is that there is a number of patches already merged in > Samsung tree on which the patches discussed here depend. OK, I think I misread the original email. I thought you were asking for future pull requests to go through the samsung tree, but you only mean the ones in this thread. No problem there. Acked-by: Mike Turquette Regards, Mike > > > > >> > >> How do you think? Basically I need your agreement for it. > > > > Based on the above pull requests I do not see the need for changing how > > code gets merged. > > As long as there are no dependencies on arch code and series being > applied do not touch arch code, this is perfectly fine. Unfortunately > this is rarely the case, at least for Samsung platforms and at least for > now. After we finish with arch clean-up and move all code to appropriate > subsystems, it should become easier, though. > > Best regards, > Tomasz