From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 15:28:55 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] clk: at91: add generated clock driver
In-Reply-To: <20150618125918.GC27492@piout.net>
References: <1434547409-12232-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
 <1434611556.2385.8.camel@x220> <20150618093344.7d486e97@bbrezillon>
 <55827606.7020908@atmel.com> <1434614090.2385.19.camel@x220>
 <20150618125918.GC27492@piout.net>
Message-ID: <5582C797.80203@atmel.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Le 18/06/2015 14:59, Alexandre Belloni a ?crit :
> On 18/06/2015 at 09:54:50 +0200, Paul Bolle wrote :
>>> I'd like though that this matter of fact doesn't block this piece of
>>> code from being reviewed or even better merged in order to ease this new
>>> SoC landing...
>>
>> The other side of that is that the sama5d2 might never make it, or take
>> very long to make it, into mainline. And this would then end up being
>> yet another chunk of code adding no value to mainline.
>>
> 
> Come on Paul, you prefer the current situation were each vendor have
> there tree and when support for an SoC lands in mainline it is already
> deprecated?
> 
> You have one vendor here, trying to get support for its SoC even before
> the silicon is available. Intel is always cited as being a good player
> in the linux community for doing exactly that. They even have to remove
> support for a CPU that was never manufactured...
> The main difference here is that we are no longer doinc everything in
> mach-xxx so we have to get the driver part mainlined and this requires
> synchronization. I really belive that you can't blame Nicolas to get the
> drivers first then the SoC in.
> 
> Also, Atmel has a good track record and their SocS are almost fully
> supported in mainline, you can trust that sama5d2 support is going to
> land there soon.

I've just posted it BTW.

And it contains the "HAVE_AT91_GENERATED" symbol.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre