From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hans de Goede Subject: [PATCH v2 0/5] simplefb: Add clock support to simplefb Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2014 13:52:00 +0200 Message-ID: <1412337125-14388-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> Reply-To: linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , To: Tomi Valkeinen Cc: Stephen Warren , Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard , Grant Likely , Rob Herring , Luc Verhaegen , Maxime Ripard , Mike Turquette , linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, devicetree , linux-sunxi-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hi Tomi, Here is v2 of the patch-set to add clocks support to simplefb. Changes in v2: -Added "simplefb: Add simplefb MAINTAINERS entry" patch If you've followed the discussion sofar, then you know that not everyone agrees 100% with this. The primary concern being that this will turn simplefb into not-so-simplefb. However no-one has been able to come up with a workable alternative solution. We've asked input from Mike Turquette, the clk maintainer, and he agrees that the solution in this patch-set is the right way to deal with clocks for simplefb, and he has given his Reviewed-by for the dt-bindings patch. As for the simplefb code becoming to complex for this, I noticed that simplefb currently does not have an active maintainer. I've discussed this with Stephen Warren , the original author of simplefb, and with his permisson I'm picking up maintainership of simplefb. And as the new maintainer of simplefb I agree that the approach in this patch-set is the best way forward, and I've added my Reviewed-by to Luc's patches adding the clocks property support. I fully commit myself to actively maintain simplefb for the foreseeable future. I believe that having the acks of both the clk and simplefb maintainer is more then good enough to get this set merged despite not everyone agreeing 100% with it (note some people have expressed concerns, but no one has actually nacked it). Therefor I would like to ask you to merge this set for 3.19, or if there is still time for 3.18. Thanks & Regards, Hans