From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomasz.figa@gmail.com (Tomasz Figa) Date: Sat, 10 May 2014 01:11:45 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2.1 3/9] ARM: S3C24XX: enable usage of common dclk if common clock framework is enabled In-Reply-To: <1428172.jtv2HGWM9N@phil> References: <2104342.rkElQpXtvM@phil> <1399654181.19276.2.camel@x220> <536D1611.4010301@gmail.com> <1428172.jtv2HGWM9N@phil> Message-ID: <536D60B1.2070906@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Heiko, On 10.05.2014 01:07, Heiko St?bner wrote: > Am Freitag, 9. Mai 2014, 19:53:21 schrieb Tomasz Figa: >> On 09.05.2014 18:49, Paul Bolle wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-04-23 at 22:09 +0200, Heiko St?bner wrote: >>>> Add platform device and select the correct implementation automatically >>>> depending on wether the old samsung_clock or the common clock framework >>>> is enabled. >>>> >>>> This is only done for machines already using the old dclk implementation, >>>> as everybody else should move to use dt anyway. >>>> >>>> The machine-specific settings for the external clocks will have to be set >>>> by somebody with knowledge about the specific hardware. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner >>>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa >>> >>> It seems this one just hit linux-next (in next-20140509). >> >> Which is bad, because: >> a) it conflicts with patches already applied in samsung-clk tree, > > I remember seeing patches regarding more than one clk-samsung clock providers. > Do you need any additional changes for s3c24xx from me for this? > Yes, that's the problem here. If you could do it, I would appreciate it, but if you don't have time then I can handle this. The changes needed are mostly trivial - basically every common samsung_clk function gets new argument to a context structure. The branch to base on would be for_3.16/exynos5260 in samsung-clk tree. > >> b) the DT binding added by patch 4/9 has not been acked . > > I'm not 100% sure if this is necessary, as the binding is similar to most > other Samsung bindings and looking through recent clock binding changes I > didn't find any that seemed to have a special dt-maintainer ack - including > Exynos ones. Also if I remember correctly there was this "if we don't respond, > carry on" policy around :-) . > Well, for me this could go as is, but rules should be followed and the rules are ACK or 3 weeks and a ping without response. So we need to wait at least to next Wednesday to bypass DT review. Best regards, Tomasz