From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette)
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 10:03:31 -0700
Subject: [PATCHv2 00/10] ARM: sunxi: Architecture cleanups and rework
In-Reply-To: <515F0743.4010509@free-electrons.com>
References: <1364289198-11589-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>
 <51555CCF.2090005@free-electrons.com> <20130402183100.GM25867@quad.lixom.net>
 <515F0743.4010509@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <20130408170331.14359.52789@quantum>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Quoting Maxime Ripard (2013-04-05 10:17:55)
> Le 02/04/2013 20:31, Olof Johansson a ?crit :
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:20:15AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >> Hi Mike,
> >>
> >> Le 26/03/2013 10:13, Maxime Ripard a ?crit :
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> This patchset is a serie of various cleanups and reworks in the sunxi
> >>> architecture to prepare a clean landing for the next Allwinner SoC, the
> >>> A31 (sun6i).
> >>>
> >>> The A31 is significantly different from the previous Allwinner SoC we
> >>> supported, the A10 and A13, to no longer make the generic sunxi prefix
> >>> we used in most compatible string relevant, while it should really have
> >>> been sun4i in the first place.
> >>>
> >>> This set is also the occasion to cleanup the timer and irq code by
> >>> switching to the recently introduced clocksource and irqchip
> >>> infrastructures.
> >>>
> >>> This set depends on the UART patches I sent previously.
> >>
> >> I was meaning to take this branch, but some of the drivers changes in it
> >> depends on the clock patches that Emilio sent and that are in clk-next.
> >> Is it ok to merge clk-next into my branch?
> > 
> > All of of a <subsystem>-next branch is usually asking for trouble, since it'll
> > cause all sorts of pain if the other maintianer is rebasing his for-next
> > branch.
> > 
> > Best is to get those patches on just a minimal topic branch (that is still
> > bisectable) that is shared between the trees.
> > 
> > Mike?
> 
> Mike, could you comment on that? I'd very much like to see this patches
> come into 3.10.
> 

Sorry for not seeing this earlier.  This thread ended up in my mail
killfile somehow.

I have already merged the patches that this series depends on into my
immutable clk-for-3.10 branch.  Unfortunately that means that they
cannot be separated out into a shared topic branch.  However
clk-for-3.10 is immutable and will never be rebased, so it is safe to
pull in as a dependency.

Does that solve the issue adequately?

Just for reference, the clk-for-3.x branch is always a subset of
clk-next.  Once some patches from clk-next have had some cycles in
linux-next and enough time has passed since being merged without any
regressions or other issues I migrate them over into clk-for-3.x.
clk-next itself is typically just clk-for-3.x with between 3 and 10
patches on top that may be dropped or rebased or merged into
clk-for-3.x.

Regards,
Mike

> Maxime
> 
> 
> -- 
> Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
> http://free-electrons.com