From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (Sascha Hauer) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:13:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 00/13] SPEAr: Move to common clock framework In-Reply-To: References: <201204171434.06178.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <20120418211303.GE3852@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:45:42PM -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> SPEAr now supports common clock framework. This patchset contains changes > >> related to this. It also contain few dependency commits for clock framework that > >> are earlier sent separately. > >> > >> @Mike: It would be easiest to get these through ARM-SoC tree. So, would need > >> your Acked-by on these patches. But firstly they must get reivewed :) > > > > We should agree on how we want to do the common clk patches for v3.5. > > The two options I see are either we take all the patches that Mike > > Acks into arm-soc, or Mike applies the patches in his own tree and > > submits them to arm-soc. I think either way is fine for me, but > > some people might feel strongly one way or another. > > I would prefer the latter (I maintain a branch and submit it). Is > arm-soc still the right place for common clk patches in 3.5 and > beyond? I don't mind hosting a branch for inclusion into linux-next > and sending a pull request to Linus. There is nothing ARM-specific > about the common framework. Either way is fine with me, but it's really important that all the floating clock framework patches begin to materialize in a visible branch. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |