From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AB4F1F4C90; Wed, 17 Sep 2025 04:49:38 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758084578; cv=none; b=efMhu+dYxBc/w390jb+ESMA5NPnS721riQzt419Sr32sMpsZVY4J7EQizokuZD3ekNby/C2Us9CM4TTEkICXxBkh9x/LPu745JUPLjse3I08sH2063+0kFj4In1SMwrF14Qm1aP0XSC/htuG9svUHcfN/IQNnG1TJu6xuDq/zlc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758084578; c=relaxed/simple; bh=6iKUJefCEfN6dN0bjyWGNmIlwawpbU6TIZlivM2qAv0=; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Cc: To:Date:Message-ID; b=qRyHxN5NVcHoaFLjzP9M5GTFWxbnHgIcsDXmLNP5/nEODYQN7VGeE4TXpFhFRDCQyBH4YzVpJle46VPJ7Vi0Xu6YDG0VnloG5adQuqQ+yNMlnMKAK1TFOW9atoibXwo4DFzBSY2lMTcOf60oNsRuf0c/ywXmbkL6+dbOXsx5/tg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=kgixDBAV; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kgixDBAV" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00976C4CEF0; Wed, 17 Sep 2025 04:49:37 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1758084578; bh=6iKUJefCEfN6dN0bjyWGNmIlwawpbU6TIZlivM2qAv0=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Cc:To:Date:From; b=kgixDBAV4DcV+vsxuyDQuN9mAKXk+Fwp1Rj7x5YjbvblULsWAjF/aqf4SdHA+PpDb xk6vGGX2Pdx3p0E6YVCaxuf9Npu0VVrTCj+g6jBSg4IS/a+GDGRM0aEzmu6edX0sb+ TT0qZcVpdp0GVLpmFTHtS2mZjfEa8B03vsV1Kh5dlnL8V6JkVuZxgJJstbKNy4AUDl PJP3twPd6gCUe25poKni14DRAuiG/qn+PKKys2pNGF20j8V0BePISlvbx/+kDqj6GY NTzE0nbNhO6j5bAs55i9Ua3Eo4y5mz5bdi9u0ho52p1NplYz4sR4/DrcwyfKSj2soL eEeRl/PG2KFpQ== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <0695ca65-536c-48d9-ad1b-49452e67a6f9@microchip.com> References: <20250916080545.9310-1-nicolas.ferre@microchip.com> <0695ca65-536c-48d9-ad1b-49452e67a6f9@microchip.com> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] ARM: microchip: clk for 6.18 #1 From: Stephen Boyd Cc: Linux Kernel list , linux-arm-kernel , Alexandre Belloni , Conor Dooley , Claudiu Beznea , oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, llvm@lists.linux.dev, kbuild test robot To: Arnd Bergmann , Nicolas Ferre , SoC Team , linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 21:49:37 -0700 Message-ID: <175808457715.4354.11044142356915096975@lazor> User-Agent: alot/0.11 Quoting Nicolas Ferre (2025-09-16 06:19:11) > On 16/09/2025 at 10:05, nicolas.ferre@microchip.com wrote: > > From: Nicolas Ferre > >=20 > > Dear clock maintainers, > >=20 > > Here are the first clk changes for 6.18. > > I don't think they have conflict with changes for the deprecated round_= rate() > > to determine_rate() topic. > > They are in linux-next for a couple of days. >=20 > But... this series depends on this patch: > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250827145427.46819-4-nicolas.ferre@microchip.= com >=20 > Which will be part of a pull-request to-be-sent soon to arm-soc (which=20 > is part of linux-next, so the build error doesn't appear there). >=20 > Once the pull-request is done, do you prefer that I do an immutable=20 > branch between CLK and ARM, that I queue this at91 PM patch into the clk = > pull-request or that everything goes through arm-soc? Whatever is required to build the code should be included in the PR. If the same commit goes into arm-soc tree that's OK, just make sure the branches aren't broken if you checkout a commit anywhere along the branch that is sent to clk or arm-soc trees. Broken includes functionally broken.