From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/8] clk: max77686: Clock provider implementation fixes Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 09:01:55 -0800 Message-ID: <20140108170155.27803.27478@quantum> References: <1386864441-19561-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <2890647.PEOApIOYyP@amdc1227> <20140108163138.27803.58310@quantum> <3008563.6S2kFjQKp9@amdc1227> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3008563.6S2kFjQKp9@amdc1227> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Samuel Ortiz , Sachin Kamat , Kyungmin Park , Lee Jones , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Quoting Tomasz Figa (2014-01-08 08:44:29) > On Wednesday 08 of January 2014 08:31:38 Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Tomasz Figa (2014-01-02 07:22:12) > > > On Tuesday 31 of December 2013 11:42:15 Mike Turquette wrote: > > > > Quoting Tomasz Figa (2013-12-12 08:07:13) > > > > > This series intends to improve clock provider impementation of max77686 > > > > > PMIC driver. First two patches are simple fixes of current implementation > > > > > to allow correct control of provided clocks. Further patches refactor > > > > > the driver to make the code cleaner and prepare for further patches. Then > > > > > last two patches add registration of OF clock provider and adjust device > > > > > tree nodes of boards containing max77686 chip to contain properties > > > > > required by clock provider. > > > > > > > > Acked-by: Mike Turquette > > > > > > Hmm... Shouldn't this series go through the clk tree directly? If not, who > > > should be taking it? > > > > Yes it should, but I guessed it would come in a pull request. Maybe Ack > > is the wrong thing? I can just say "looks good to me me" or something > > else. > > Nah, I think Ack is completely right, but still this series is quite > standalone, e.g. it does not really belong to samsung-clk nor any other > clock subtree, so I thought you would be applying them directly. True, this isn't really a samsung clock pull request. We can just attribute this one to ironing out a few bugs in our workflow ;-) > > I believe Lee has already applied this one, but in future, to avoid such > confusion, if it's more convenient for you, I can send you any clock > series as pull requests. That is fine, and it would also be fine to state in the coverletter that you do NOT plan to send a pull request. That removes all ambiguity from my side and lets me know to pick the patches manually. Verbosity is always good with these sorts of things. Regards, Mike > > Best regards, > Tomasz >