From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 17:46:40 +0900 Subject: [GIT PULL] Renesas ARM Based SoC CPG MSTP Clock Domain Updates for v4.3 In-Reply-To: <20150811134249.GQ30181@localhost> References: <20150811134249.GQ30181@localhost> Message-ID: <20150812084638.GA16058@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Olof, On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 03:42:49PM +0200, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 11:12:03AM +0900, Simon Horman wrote: > > Hi Olof, Hi Kevin, Hi Arnd, > > > > Please consider these Renesas ARM based SoC CPG MSTP clock domain updates > > for v4.3. > > > > This pull request is based on "Third Round of Renesas ARM Based SoC DT > > Updates for v4.3", tagged as renesas-dt3-for-v4.3, which I have also sent a > > pull-request for. > > > > The reason for that base is that the DT changes in this series update nodes > > added in that tag. > > > > This series begins with driver changes and follows up with DT changes. > > The latter depend on the former. > > > > > > The following changes since commit 94bdc48d55ca10f90b4a625f0e443197e0013557: > > > > ARM: shmobile: sh73a0 dtsi: Add missing "gpio-ranges" to gpio node (2015-08-05 06:39:28 +0900) > > > > are available in the git repository at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/horms/renesas.git tags/renesas-cpg-mstp-clock-domain-for-v4.3 > > > > for you to fetch changes up to 2daa8a5a8c0994893c2ca456303f0bf53e881cb9: > > > > ARM: shmobile: r8a7794 dtsi: Add CPG/MSTP Clock Domain (2015-08-05 06:42:51 +0900) > > We normally prefer to see drivers separately from DT. If you've looked at how > we organize arm-soc, you've maybe seen that we have a separate topic for > next/driver and one for next/dt. In other words, we try to keep them apart > where it makes sense. > > In this case, that would mean having the clk changes in a drivers branch, and > include that in this dt4 branch. > > If you want a reminder for when you might have looked at the branch sorting > wrong: If you're naming the branch after a feature instead of the type of > patches in it (when you send it to us), then chances are that we would ideally > like to see the contents sorted differently -- at least in the cases where they > cross the category boundaries that we organize our tree in. > > So, while it's not a huge deal I think it makes sense to revisit this > and do that sorting for consistency's sake. Can I please ask that you > respin this pull request with that in mind? I'd cherry-pick them apart > but I know you tend to base branches on each other so that might mess > you up and I don't want to do that. Thanks for the detailed feedback. I have split the pull-request and reposted as you suggest above. And I'll try to keep your 'reminder' in mind in future.