From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette)
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:56:56 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v6 00/16] clk: exynos4/5: migrate to common clock
 framework
In-Reply-To: <116a01ce24fd$e32658b0$a9730a10$%kim@samsung.com>
References: <1361175686-19400-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
 <20130319184938.8663.18115@quantum> <201303192212.16877.heiko@sntech.de>
 <20130319215038.8663.83548@quantum>
 <116a01ce24fd$e32658b0$a9730a10$%kim@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <20130320025656.11073.90469@quantum>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Quoting Kukjin Kim (2013-03-19 17:00:09)
> Mike Turquette wrote:
> > 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > > Thomas,
> > > >
> > > > Are you planning a V7 series which includes the clock alias bits from
> > > > patch #1?
> > >
> > > Kukjin has already applied this series into the linux-samsung tree [0].
> > >
> Thanks, Heiko.
> 
> Mike, yes I did, as we discussed before. Since I missed in last window for v3.9, so I merged every common clock stuff for exynos into samsung tree in the early 3.9-rc time for v3.10.
> > 
> > That really is too much code to go into drivers/clk without my ACK.  I
> > have not made much noise about this in the past but there has been more
> > and more "bonus" code slipping into drivers/clk each merge window.
> > Let's not do that any more.
> > 
> 
> Hmm, I remember you already agreed on previous version, and I thought if any further codes are required, we could do it on top of that.
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-January/143429.html
> 

In the email you linked to my use of the word "merged" did not imply an
ACK.  I was asking about merging the two separate exynos4 and exynos5
ccf development efforts together.

Furthermore if I *had* agreed on the previous version it would still
have been appropriate to put my Acked-by on those patches, which is
clearly missing today.

> However, if you don't want current codes to be sent to upstream, let me know, but I don't think it would be better to us though.

No, I am not asking you to revert/drop the patches, but I am using this
as a public example.

Regards,
Mike

> 
> Thanks.
> 
> - Kukjin