From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCHv9 5/9] clk: mvebu: create parent-child relation for PCIe clocks on Armada 370 Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 00:08:26 -0700 Message-ID: <20130517070826.12127.41382@quantum> References: <1368624323-24311-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1368624323-24311-6-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20130515214154.12127.73539@quantum> <20130516094417.24b1ca0d@skate> <51949830.70306@gmail.com> <20130516150616.GD6563@titan.lakedaemon.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130516150616.GD6563@titan.lakedaemon.net> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jason Cooper , Sebastian Hesselbarth Cc: Thomas Petazzoni , Andrew Lunn , Gregory Clement , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Bjorn Helgaas , Grant Likely , Lior Amsalem , Maen Suleiman , Tawfik Bayouk , Jason Gunthorpe , linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Thierry Reding , Rob Herring , Ezequiel Garcia , devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Quoting Jason Cooper (2013-05-16 08:06:16) > Mike, Sebastian, > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 10:26:24AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > On 05/16/2013 09:44 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > >Dear Mike Turquette, > > > > > >On Wed, 15 May 2013 14:41:54 -0700, Mike Turquette wrote: > > >>Quoting Thomas Petazzoni (2013-05-15 06:25:19) > > >>>The Armada 370 has two gatable clocks for each PCIe interface, and we > > >>>want both of them to be enabled. We therefore make one of the two > > >>>clocks a child of the other, as we did for the sataX and sataXlnk > > >>>clocks on Armada XP. > > >> > > >>Ack for patches #5 and #6. Do you want me to take them? > > Thanks for the Ack! > > > >I don't know, I guess with your Ack, it would be easier to carry them > > >through the Marvell maintainers and then the arm-soc tree, so that we > > >can test arm-soc and have all the pieces needed in here. > > > > > >That said, Sebastian Hesselbarth has submitted a big rework of the > > >mvebu clock drivers, which would conflict with this patch, and > > >Sebastian's rework would most likely go through your tree. If that's > > >the case, I guess it would be better to let you take #5 and #6 in this > > >patch series. > > > > I also requested to take the restructure patches through ARM tree. They > > are only touching files in drivers/clk/mvebu and by taking them through > > ARM, we can update PCIe clock patches easily. The dependency between > > Thomas' and my patches basically is that I renamed files that Thomas > > now commits to. (I switched clk/mvebu from per-function files to per-soc > > files). > > I agree. My heart jumped into my throat a little there :) Mike, if > it's ok with you, I'd prefer to take these through arm-soc. Any merge > conflicts should be minimal. And at any rate, resolving the conflicts > are *much* easier to handle than having arm-soc depend on an outside > tree (then Linus has to take care in the order he merges them, no > rebasing for clk tree, dogs and cats living together, etc ;-) ) > Yeah that all sounds good to me. I'll review the restructure patches shortly. Regards, Mike > thx, > > Jason.