From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk (Ben Dooks) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 12:52:49 +0100 Subject: Renesas clock clk-mstp updates for clock-indices In-Reply-To: References: <1394196400-17112-1-git-send-email-ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk> <534D1B60.8030007@codethink.co.uk> Message-ID: <534D1D91.2050602@codethink.co.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 15/04/14 12:46, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 1:43 PM, Ben Dooks wrote: >> On 15/04/14 10:26, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >>> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Ben Dooks >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Mike, following the commit to add the clock-indices field, the following >>>> pair of commits updates the shmboile clk-mstp driver to uses these over >>>> the local variant. >>>> >>>> Since this is involves two separte trees which are in development, the >>>> decision is that we will fixup the renesas trees once they are merged >>>> and the development cycle is complete. Once this is done, patch 2/2 >>>> can be reverted (if people care about three lines of differrence) >>> >>> >>> As we now have "renesas,clock-indices" in v3.14, the question about >>> backwards >>> compatibility became moot. >> >> Do you mean 'necessary'? > > Yes, now the backwards compatibility is necessary. > >>> Can you please combine your two patches >>> >>> [PATCH 1/2] clk: shmobile: clk-mstp: change to using clock-indices >>> [PATCH 2/2] clk: shmobile: clk-mstp: add backwards comapt for indices >>> field >>> >>> into a single patch, and submit to Mike? >>> >>> Once it's in Mike's clk-next, we can do the following to get everything in >>> v3.15: >>> 1. Simon cherry-picks Mike's commit into his fixes-for-v3.15 branch, >>> 2. we fix arch/arm/boot/dts/r8a7790.dtsi and .../r8a7791.dtsi there, >>> 3. fixes-for-v3.15 gets into mainline through arm-soc. >> >> Wouldn't it be easier if we just got mike's ack and fixed it in one go? > > That's another option. But if Mike doesn't apply it to his clk-next, this > may cause a merge conflict later. Given there's not a lot of work going on with the mstp driver at the moment I don't see that there should be much room for conflicts if we are getting fixes in for 3.15-rc1. Mike, would you prefer an Ack for 1/2, have them both in via yourself (and revert 2/2 later) or have them as one patch and sort out fixing up later? -- Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/ Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius