From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 19:20:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v14 In-Reply-To: <20110414153813.GC6259@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1299134429.100626.661279191478.0.gpush@pororo> <1302754859.2767.30.camel@pororo> <20110414100048.GB1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1302776705.28876.113.camel@pasglop> <20110414103200.GF1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110414120904.GH1611@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110414153813.GC6259@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110414172017.GD31990@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 04:38:14PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 09:39:58AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > Now, the next thing is that Linus hasn't been too happy about driver stuff > coming via my tree either - it's something which has been the subject of > concern in private email. I've _already_ said something about that prior > to the recent merge window. So should I take the clk API stuff which > touches the drivers subtree? If yes, it needs to be kept entirely separate > from the rest of the ARM stuff so we don't end up mixing drivers stuff with > ARM stuff. OK, so the solution is to put this in a seperate branch. But then when platform maintainers start working with it the resulting changes will most probably go to arch/arm. So if Linus doesn't want to pull a tree that touches both drivers/clk and arch/arm, then either he has to pull the clk branch first or we have to wait for the next merge window until we can use it. I prefer the former. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |