From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: f.fainelli@gmail.com (Florian Fainelli) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 12:59:12 -0800 Subject: [GIT PULL 1/2] Broadcom dts changes for 4.11 (part 2) In-Reply-To: <1912177.f24aWX6xy5@wuerfel> References: <20170202020607.31682-1-f.fainelli@gmail.com> <1912177.f24aWX6xy5@wuerfel> Message-ID: <077dc1a1-7069-dd84-5f23-1f88420b05e5@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/07/2017 06:49 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 6:06:07 PM CET Florian Fainelli wrote: >> Please note that because of the "clk" topic branch merged by Eric, we end-up with >> pulling in v4.10-rc2 which is responsible for the funny diff here. > > It's generally better to avoid those back-merges entirely, that is not > the only problem with them. Our DT branch is already based on -rc3, > so it's not a back-merged for me, and I think that's ok when I send > it upstream. > > However, I see that you do pull in these changes: > > Eric Anholt (5): > clk: bcm2835: Don't rate change PLLs on behalf of DSI PLL dividers. > clk: bcm2835: Register the DSI0/DSI1 pixel clocks. > clk: bcm2835: Add leaf clock measurement support, disabled by default > > I'd rather not have those in next/dt at all, and at the very least > we require an explanation in the changelog about why you are sending > them to arm-soc. I assume that they are present in the clk-next > tree and won't get rebased, but that's not clear from your pull > request. OK, the explanation is provided in the merge commit, but I suppose I should have added this again to the pull request changelog. > > Are you doing an incompatible DT binding change that requires changing > the dts files and the driver together? If so, that also needs to be > in the changelog (or avoided if at all possible). Eric, do you mind commenting on that part? > > If you send the other changes again today, I'll pull them right away, > and then we can talk about what we do for the clk-bcm2835 changes. OK, let me try to sync up with Eric on this and see if we can come up with something better. A pull request based on v4.10-rc3 would be acceptable, right? -- Florian