From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@ti.com (Turquette, Mike) Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:01:08 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 00/13] SPEAr: Move to common clock framework In-Reply-To: <201204190857.19770.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201204190857.19770.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 18 April 2012, Turquette, Mike wrote: >> I've taken patches 02 - 06 into my -next branch. ?Patch 01 isn't for >> me really, and I've not yet tested patch 07 (I'll take it everything >> looks good). ?The rest of your series (08 - 13) should probably go >> through Arnd. > > My preference would be to have the whole series go through your tree > and move the implementation of the spear clock code to drivers/clk > in the process. This will reduce interdependencies between the spear > clock branch and other branches that have spear patches. If Viresh moves his code to drivers/clk/ then I'll take it. > I also think it's a good idea if you submit the clk patches to Linus > directly for the next merge window, but it's ok to use arm-soc if > that makes you feel more confident about it. As I said in my previous mail, I'd prefer to send to Linus directly. Sounds like we're in agreement. Regards, Mike