From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dinh.linux@gmail.com (Dinh Nguyen)
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2013 22:05:54 -0600
Subject: [GIT PULL]clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: Fix read_sched_clock
In-Reply-To: <52530903.4090709@linaro.org>
References: <1381159679-6528-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com>
 <5252DCB6.3070805@linaro.org> <5252EB22.2050506@linaro.org>
 <52530903.4090709@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <52917B22.3040205@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Daniel,

On 10/7/13 2:18 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 10/07/2013 07:10 PM, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 10/07/2013 09:09 AM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2013 05:27 PM, dinguyen at altera.com wrote:
>>>> From: Dinh Nguyen <dinguyen@altera.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Thomas, John,
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping you can pull in these 2 patches. These 2 patches have
>>>> been floating
>>>> around for almost 2 months now. They are needed to get the Altera
>>>> SOCFPGA
>>>> booting again because of a DTS binding change in 3.12.
>>>>
>>>> The other change was correctly return the current clock counter.
>>>>
>>>> The discussion thread can be found here:
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-September/198818.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-September/198903.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This patch does not attempt or change the behaviour of the ordering
>>>> of how a
>>>> clocksource or clockevent is use. These 2 patches only enables a
>>>> platform to boot.
>>>
>>> John,
>>>
>>> I agree with Dinh, these patches fixes a boot issue on Altera SOCFPGA
>>> and should be merged.
>>>
>>
>> Hey Dinh,
>>      Thanks for persisting here! Sorry this has taken awhile. Just as an
>> FYI, Daniel is maintaining the drivers/clocksource dir these days.
>>
>> So, I've not been following this closely, but if I recall we had a merge
>> conflict that we backed out, since it seemed that everyone involved in
>> this driver weren't working together. Then Thomas had some objections,
>> but it *looks* like that's been resolved. So I don't have any objections
>> at this point.
>
> Yeah, it happens the same to me :)
>
>> Daniel: if you want to pull these in to your tree, that's fine by me.
>
> Ok, pulled to my tree.
I did not see these 2 patches in 3.13-rc1. Just wondering what happened
to them?

Thanks,
Dinh
>
> Thanks !
>   -- Daniel
>
>