diff for duplicates of <7hiobw8s31.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt index 1fa96da..a75b25f 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N1/1.txt @@ -4,32 +4,23 @@ Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> writes: >> On 05/08/15 03:02, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 02:03:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >> On 05/07/15 08:17, Kevin Hilman wrote: ->> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> = -wrote: ->> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko St=C3=BCbner wrote: +>> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote: +>> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko St?bner wrote: >> >>>>> Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2015, 13:52:47 schrieb Stephen Boyd: >> >>>>> ->> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, lik= -e in the +>> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, like in the >> >>>>>>> following patch? ->> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep= - the ->> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested on= -ly patch? ->> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the= - clock tree ->> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I n= -eeded it ->> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more = -compact than ->> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this = -as follow-up +>> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep the +>> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested only patch? +>> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the clock tree +>> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I needed it +>> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more compact than +>> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this as follow-up >> >>>>> on top or fold it into the original orphan-check, so in any case >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> >> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> ->> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it= - with +>> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it with >> >>>> my patch and a note that it's based on an earlier patch from you. >> >>> It appears this has landed in linux-next in the form of 882667c1fcf1 >> >>> clk: prevent orphan clocks from being used. A bunch of boot failures @@ -44,7 +35,7 @@ as follow-up >> >> clk_ignore_unused on the command line? >> > This makes it work, but it's not really an option. >> > ->>=20 +>> >> Hmm.. I thought it didn't fix it for Kevin. Confused. > > I'm too, but it does fix things here. diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest index 3dc9f88..b4ba51b 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N1/content_digest @@ -8,45 +8,10 @@ "ref\020150508100247.GQ11057@lukather\0" "ref\055528046.4030107@codeaurora.org\0" "ref\020150513130304.GA4004@lukather\0" - "From\0Kevin Hilman <khilman@kernel.org>\0" - "Subject\0Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] clk: improve handling of orphan clocks\0" + "From\0khilman@kernel.org (Kevin Hilman)\0" + "Subject\0[PATCH v3 0/2] clk: improve handling of orphan clocks\0" "Date\0Wed, 13 May 2015 07:33:54 -0700\0" - "To\0Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>\0" - "Cc\0Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>" - " Heiko St\303\274bner <heiko@sntech.de>" - Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org> - Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org> - linux-clk@vger.kernel.org - lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> - linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org> - Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> - Alex Elder <elder@linaro.org> - Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> - Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org> - Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> - Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de> - Zhangfei Gao <zhangfei.gao@linaro.org> - Santosh Shilimkar <ssantosh@kernel.org> - Chao Xie <chao.xie@marvell.com> - Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> - Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@i2se.com> - Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@chromium.org> - Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> - Georgi Djakov <georgi.djakov@linaro.org> - Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com> - Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> - Barry Song <baohua@kernel.org> - Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@opensource.altera.com> - Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@gmail.com> - Gabriel FERNANDEZ <gabriel.fernandez@st.com> - " Emilio L\303\263pez <emilio@elopez.com.ar>" - Peter De Sc hrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> - Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com> - Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@linaro.org> - Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com> - Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com> - Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> - " Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org>\0" + "To\0linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org\0" "\00:1\0" "b\0" "Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> writes:\n" @@ -55,32 +20,23 @@ ">> On 05/08/15 03:02, Maxime Ripard wrote:\n" ">> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 02:03:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:\n" ">> >> On 05/07/15 08:17, Kevin Hilman wrote:\n" - ">> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> =\n" - "wrote:\n" - ">> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko St=C3=BCbner wrote:\n" + ">> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:\n" + ">> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko St?bner wrote:\n" ">> >>>>> Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2015, 13:52:47 schrieb Stephen Boyd:\n" ">> >>>>>\n" - ">> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, lik=\n" - "e in the\n" + ">> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, like in the\n" ">> >>>>>>> following patch?\n" - ">> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep=\n" - " the\n" - ">> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested on=\n" - "ly patch?\n" - ">> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the=\n" - " clock tree\n" - ">> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I n=\n" - "eeded it\n" - ">> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more =\n" - "compact than\n" - ">> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this =\n" - "as follow-up\n" + ">> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep the\n" + ">> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested only patch?\n" + ">> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the clock tree\n" + ">> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I needed it\n" + ">> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more compact than\n" + ">> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this as follow-up\n" ">> >>>>> on top or fold it into the original orphan-check, so in any case\n" ">> >>>>>\n" ">> >>>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>\n" ">> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>\n" - ">> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it=\n" - " with\n" + ">> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it with\n" ">> >>>> my patch and a note that it's based on an earlier patch from you.\n" ">> >>> It appears this has landed in linux-next in the form of 882667c1fcf1\n" ">> >>> clk: prevent orphan clocks from being used. A bunch of boot failures\n" @@ -95,7 +51,7 @@ ">> >> clk_ignore_unused on the command line?\n" ">> > This makes it work, but it's not really an option.\n" ">> >\n" - ">>=20\n" + ">> \n" ">> Hmm.. I thought it didn't fix it for Kevin. Confused.\n" ">\n" "> I'm too, but it does fix things here.\n" @@ -113,4 +69,4 @@ "\n" Kevin -c1be81d1e5e1abb0f17ff0510b623c834f704a418a45bda40394a96d998e8a9d +8daac41b488d127baad24c2e6e14b10396f6b8c9aec74e638be88d8651e0b0b0
diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N2/1.txt index 1fa96da..a450446 100644 --- a/a/1.txt +++ b/N2/1.txt @@ -4,32 +4,23 @@ Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> writes: >> On 05/08/15 03:02, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 02:03:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> >> On 05/07/15 08:17, Kevin Hilman wrote: ->> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> = -wrote: ->> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko St=C3=BCbner wrote: +>> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote: +>> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko Stübner wrote: >> >>>>> Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2015, 13:52:47 schrieb Stephen Boyd: >> >>>>> ->> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, lik= -e in the +>> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, like in the >> >>>>>>> following patch? ->> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep= - the ->> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested on= -ly patch? ->> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the= - clock tree ->> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I n= -eeded it ->> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more = -compact than ->> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this = -as follow-up +>> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep the +>> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested only patch? +>> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the clock tree +>> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I needed it +>> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more compact than +>> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this as follow-up >> >>>>> on top or fold it into the original orphan-check, so in any case >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> >> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> ->> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it= - with +>> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it with >> >>>> my patch and a note that it's based on an earlier patch from you. >> >>> It appears this has landed in linux-next in the form of 882667c1fcf1 >> >>> clk: prevent orphan clocks from being used. A bunch of boot failures @@ -44,7 +35,7 @@ as follow-up >> >> clk_ignore_unused on the command line? >> > This makes it work, but it's not really an option. >> > ->>=20 +>> >> Hmm.. I thought it didn't fix it for Kevin. Confused. > > I'm too, but it does fix things here. diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N2/content_digest index 3dc9f88..056875d 100644 --- a/a/content_digest +++ b/N2/content_digest @@ -55,32 +55,23 @@ ">> On 05/08/15 03:02, Maxime Ripard wrote:\n" ">> > On Thu, May 07, 2015 at 02:03:57PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:\n" ">> >> On 05/07/15 08:17, Kevin Hilman wrote:\n" - ">> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> =\n" - "wrote:\n" - ">> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko St=C3=BCbner wrote:\n" + ">> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 4:40 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:\n" + ">> >>>> On 05/01/15 15:07, Heiko St\303\274bner wrote:\n" ">> >>>>> Am Freitag, 1. Mai 2015, 13:52:47 schrieb Stephen Boyd:\n" ">> >>>>>\n" - ">> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, lik=\n" - "e in the\n" + ">> >>>>>>> Instead I guess we could hook it less deep into clk_get_sys, like in the\n" ">> >>>>>>> following patch?\n" - ">> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep=\n" - " the\n" - ">> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested on=\n" - "ly patch?\n" - ">> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the=\n" - " clock tree\n" - ">> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I n=\n" - "eeded it\n" - ">> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more =\n" - "compact than\n" - ">> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this =\n" - "as follow-up\n" + ">> >>>>>> It looks like it will work at least, but still I'd prefer to keep the\n" + ">> >>>>>> orphan check contained to clk.c. How about this compile tested only patch?\n" + ">> >>>>> I gave this a spin on my rk3288-firefly board. It still boots, the clock tree\n" + ">> >>>>> looks the same and it also still defers nicely in the scenario I needed it\n" + ">> >>>>> for. The implementation also looks nice - and of course much more compact than\n" + ">> >>>>> my check in two places :-) . I don't know if you want to put this as follow-up\n" ">> >>>>> on top or fold it into the original orphan-check, so in any case\n" ">> >>>>>\n" ">> >>>>> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>\n" ">> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de>\n" - ">> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it=\n" - " with\n" + ">> >>>> Thanks. I'm leaning towards tossing your patch 2/2 and replacing it with\n" ">> >>>> my patch and a note that it's based on an earlier patch from you.\n" ">> >>> It appears this has landed in linux-next in the form of 882667c1fcf1\n" ">> >>> clk: prevent orphan clocks from being used. A bunch of boot failures\n" @@ -95,7 +86,7 @@ ">> >> clk_ignore_unused on the command line?\n" ">> > This makes it work, but it's not really an option.\n" ">> >\n" - ">>=20\n" + ">> \n" ">> Hmm.. I thought it didn't fix it for Kevin. Confused.\n" ">\n" "> I'm too, but it does fix things here.\n" @@ -113,4 +104,4 @@ "\n" Kevin -c1be81d1e5e1abb0f17ff0510b623c834f704a418a45bda40394a96d998e8a9d +5f484d1babb115abf184a43699d4172ae0c5959d74b650580aa50eaf98c2bbc8
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.