From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 16:45:52 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd To: Linus Walleij Cc: Michael Turquette , Ulf Hansson , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk/ARM: delete the non-DT U8500 clock implementation Message-ID: <20150811234552.GP2839@codeaurora.org> References: <1438262352-29118-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20150803215129.GD21068@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-ID: On 08/10, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 07/30, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> This code is unused and not coming back. Let's kill it off. > >> > >> Cc: Ulf Hansson > >> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij > >> --- > >> Mike/Ulf: please ACK this so I can take this in through ARM > >> SoC. > >> --- > >> drivers/clk/ux500/Makefile | 1 - > >> drivers/clk/ux500/u8500_clk.c | 526 -------------------------------- > > > > There's a patch in -next against this file. > > > > commit a162ca912cf792073b0b2450377fd1cd5d5c6cb5 > > Author: Stephen Boyd > > Date: Fri Jun 19 15:00:46 2015 -0700 > > > > clk: ux500: Remove clk.h and clkdev.h includes > > > > so I wonder why we need to take this patch through arm-soc? Would > > an immutable branch from the clk tree work as well? > > No you can actually apply it in isolation. I was just collecting > them in one spot for testing. > > Can you please apply this directly to the clk tree and > fix any clashes? Sure. Do we need to apply patches 2 and 3 too? I'm mostly trying to avoid merge conflicts. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project