Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: hisilicon: add hi3620_mmc_clks

[Haojian Zhuang <haojian.zhuang@linaro.org>]

On 01/15/2014 04:29 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Haojian Zhuang (2014-01-14 21:59:40)
>> On 01/15/2014 11:53 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
>>> Quoting zhangfei (2014-01-14 17:40:25)
>>>> Dear Mike
>>>>
>>>> On 01/15/2014 04:17 AM, Mike Turquette wrote:
>>>>> Quoting Zhangfei Gao (2014-01-13 01:14:28)
>>>>>> Suggest by Arnd: abstract mmc tuning as clock behavior,
>>>>>> also because different soc have different tuning method and registers.
>>>>>> hi3620_mmc_clks is added to handle mmc clock specifically on hi3620.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
>>>>>> Acked-by: Jaehoon Chung <jh80.chung@samsung.com>
>>>>> Patch looks good to me with one exception. I do not have
>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/hisilicon/hisilicon.txt in the
>>>>> clk-next branch. Is there a stable branch I can pull in as a dependency?
>>>> Mach-hisi just have been uploaeded.
>>>> Have tried next-20140114, the patch can be applied successfully.
>>>> While v3.13-rc8 still can not.
>>>>
>>>> Is this fine?
>>> Can you give me a link to the branch that introduces
>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/hisilicon/hisilicon.txt?
>>>
>>> I guess the patch introducing it is going through arm-soc. Is this going
>>> in for 3.14? If so then perhaps the clk tree and the arm-soc tree can
>>> share a stable branch that introduces it.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>> Some patches are merged into arm-soc, and others are in clk tree.
>> If sharing a stable branch between arm-soc and clk tree, it only means
>> that we need to revert all commits that are in arm-soc and clk tree.
>> I think it's too complex.
> I'm suggesting reverting any patches that are applied to arm-soc. I'm
> only suggesting that there might be a common branch that both the clk
> and arm-soc trees can depend on to fix this problem.
>
>> How about split the patch? The patch on document should enter in arm-soc.
> That is one approach. You might want to run it past the arm-soc folks
> first to see if they will take in the binding definition for 3.14.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
Yes, so I already made Kevin in this loop. Let's see whether he has
any comments on it.

Regards
Haojian