From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nsekhar@ti.com (Sekhar Nori) Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2018 10:12:55 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v7 0/4] ARM: davinci: complete the conversion to using the reset framework In-Reply-To: <345aed22-629a-abf6-df22-adee88a43df6@lechnology.com> References: <20180621073706.22812-1-brgl@bgdev.pl> <9ec10627-49a5-07ad-8c9d-5ac873096cc0@ti.com> <345aed22-629a-abf6-df22-adee88a43df6@lechnology.com> Message-ID: <03256c00-c23f-68c4-c62b-fb4b85547551@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 02 July 2018 08:57 PM, David Lechner wrote: > On 07/02/2018 07:08 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote: >> Hi Bjorn, >> >> On Thursday 21 June 2018 05:11 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>> 2018-06-21 12:52 GMT+02:00 Sekhar Nori : >>>> Hi Bartosz, >>>> >>>> On Thursday 21 June 2018 01:07 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: >>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski >>>>> >>>>> These are the remaining patches that still need to be merged in order >>>>> to complete the conversion of the davinci dsp driver to using the >>>>> reset >>>>> framework. >>>>> >>>>> They apply on top of v4.18-rc1 with David Lechner's remaining patches >>>>> merged. >>>> >>>> Series looks good to me. >>>> >>>> To preserve bisect, shouldn't the order of applying be patch #3, #4, #1 >>>> and #2 ? >>>> >>>> Given the dependencies and to preserve bisect its easiest if I take the >>>> series with acks from remoteproc and clock maintainers. >>>> >>>> Open to other suggestions as well. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Sekhar >>> >>> Oops you're right about the order. Do you want me to resend? >> >> With your ack, I can queue 1/4 for v4.19 and provide an immutable commit >> to you (on top of v4.18-rc1) for you to merge any further changes you >> want to queue from your tree. >> >> Bartosz, given the number of moving pieces, I think its better to keep >> 2/4 for v4.20 release - once all other other dependencies have been >> merged. > > I was thinking the same thing as well. I will pick it up in a > clk-davinci-4.20 branch if that sounds OK. Sounds good. Just check that there really are no users of that API before queuing :) Regards, Sekhar