From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.1 3/9] ARM: S3C24XX: enable usage of common dclk if common clock framework is enabled Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:57:31 +0200 Message-ID: <233328610.kl5NEOjUm6@phil> References: <2104342.rkElQpXtvM@phil> <3874492.Rok1zBObEC@phil> <53714F9D.3010109@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from gloria.sntech.de ([95.129.55.99]:48631 "EHLO gloria.sntech.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758488AbaELWx6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 18:53:58 -0400 In-Reply-To: <53714F9D.3010109@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa Cc: Paul Bolle , mturquette@linaro.org, t.figa@samsung.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi Kukjin, Am Dienstag, 13. Mai 2014, 07:47:57 schrieb Kukjin Kim: > On 05/10/14 08:33, Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > > Hi Tomasz, > >=20 > >>>>> It seems this one just hit linux-next (in next-20140509). > >>>>=20 > >>>> Which is bad, because: > >>>> a) it conflicts with patches already applied in samsung-clk tree= , > >>>=20 > >>> I remember seeing patches regarding more than one clk-samsung clo= ck > >>> providers. Do you need any additional changes for s3c24xx from me= for > >>> this? > >>=20 > >> Yes, that's the problem here. If you could do it, I would apprecia= te it, > >> but if you don't have time then I can handle this. The changes nee= ded > >> are mostly trivial - basically every common samsung_clk function g= ets > >> new argument to a context structure. The branch to base on would b= e > >> for_3.16/exynos5260 in samsung-clk tree. >=20 > I think, would be better if we could fix the conflicts with Hekio's > additional patches...basically nobody wants revert something for next > tree once it is landed. But in this case, it's up to Tomasz... >=20 > Probably, Heiko resubmitted? Is it based on the branch Tomasz memtion= ed, > I didn't check it yet?.. >=20 > Tomasz, do you still want me to drop this series in samsung tree now? > Additional patches would be helpful to me because other dependency i.= e., > exynos5260...for me. I submitted a v3 series yesterday, that is based on Tomasz' branch. Thi= s=20 prevents build errors from happening. I'll let you two decide how you w= ant to=20 handle this :-) I can also produce fixup patches if you two decide to keep the v2 serie= s and=20 just fix the conflicts. Heiko From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: heiko@sntech.de (Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?=) Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 00:57:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2.1 3/9] ARM: S3C24XX: enable usage of common dclk if common clock framework is enabled In-Reply-To: <53714F9D.3010109@samsung.com> References: <2104342.rkElQpXtvM@phil> <3874492.Rok1zBObEC@phil> <53714F9D.3010109@samsung.com> Message-ID: <233328610.kl5NEOjUm6@phil> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Kukjin, Am Dienstag, 13. Mai 2014, 07:47:57 schrieb Kukjin Kim: > On 05/10/14 08:33, Heiko St?bner wrote: > > Hi Tomasz, > > > >>>>> It seems this one just hit linux-next (in next-20140509). > >>>> > >>>> Which is bad, because: > >>>> a) it conflicts with patches already applied in samsung-clk tree, > >>> > >>> I remember seeing patches regarding more than one clk-samsung clock > >>> providers. Do you need any additional changes for s3c24xx from me for > >>> this? > >> > >> Yes, that's the problem here. If you could do it, I would appreciate it, > >> but if you don't have time then I can handle this. The changes needed > >> are mostly trivial - basically every common samsung_clk function gets > >> new argument to a context structure. The branch to base on would be > >> for_3.16/exynos5260 in samsung-clk tree. > > I think, would be better if we could fix the conflicts with Hekio's > additional patches...basically nobody wants revert something for next > tree once it is landed. But in this case, it's up to Tomasz... > > Probably, Heiko resubmitted? Is it based on the branch Tomasz memtioned, > I didn't check it yet?.. > > Tomasz, do you still want me to drop this series in samsung tree now? > Additional patches would be helpful to me because other dependency i.e., > exynos5260...for me. I submitted a v3 series yesterday, that is based on Tomasz' branch. This prevents build errors from happening. I'll let you two decide how you want to handle this :-) I can also produce fixup patches if you two decide to keep the v2 series and just fix the conflicts. Heiko