From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/4] Samsung clock Exynos5260 support for v3.16 Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 06:11:24 +0900 Message-ID: <53752D7C.4010003@samsung.com> References: <1400090591-5064-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <5373CB1A.1040801@samsung.com> <20140514201313.19795.35617@quantum> <5373CFFE.1000209@gmail.com> <20140514220744.19795.64527@quantum> <5373EB24.8000306@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pb0-f48.google.com ([209.85.160.48]:37871 "EHLO mail-pb0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751076AbaEOVLa (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 May 2014 17:11:30 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id rr13so1585445pbb.7 for ; Thu, 15 May 2014 14:11:30 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5373EB24.8000306@gmail.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Mike Turquette , Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 05/15/14 07:16, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On 15.05.2014 00:07, Mike Turquette wrote: >> 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 > Mike, thanks for your ack on this whole pull-requests. I will pull 1 to 4 into samsung tree for 3.16. > Thanks. > > As you probably noticed with my pull request for 3.15, we've been > getting quite a lot of burden due to dependencies between arch and clk > patches lastly, but this is inevitable when we are moving things out of > arch. > > The good news is that after patches from this pull request series, we > will end up with just one, more or less active platform (s5pv210) that > needs to be converted (and work already in progress). > Sounds great. Thanks, Kukjin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 06:11:24 +0900 Subject: [GIT PULL 1/4] Samsung clock Exynos5260 support for v3.16 In-Reply-To: <5373EB24.8000306@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> <20140514220744.19795.64527@quantum> <5373EB24.8000306@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53752D7C.4010003@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/15/14 07:16, Tomasz Figa wrote: > On 15.05.2014 00:07, Mike Turquette wrote: >> 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 > Mike, thanks for your ack on this whole pull-requests. I will pull 1 to 4 into samsung tree for 3.16. > Thanks. > > As you probably noticed with my pull request for 3.15, we've been > getting quite a lot of burden due to dependencies between arch and clk > patches lastly, but this is inevitable when we are moving things out of > arch. > > The good news is that after patches from this pull request series, we > will end up with just one, more or less active platform (s5pv210) that > needs to be converted (and work already in progress). > Sounds great. Thanks, Kukjin