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 13:54:32 -0800 Message-ID: <20140108215432.27803.3120@quantum> References: <1386864441-19561-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <20140108171544.GC14575@lee--X1> <20140108175939.27803.30462@quantum> <4160932.uvjJSNcuKL@amdc1227> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4160932.uvjJSNcuKL@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 10:04:57) > On Wednesday 08 of January 2014 09:59:39 Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Lee Jones (2014-01-08 09:15:44) > > > > 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. > > > > > > Me? I haven't applied any clk patches. > > > > I have taken patches 1-7 into clk-next just now. > > Thanks. > > > I can take patch #8 as > > well but it would probably be better to send it through arm-soc? > > Hmm, patch 8 is trivial enough to not cause any merge conflicts, but since > it's unlikely that any users depending on introduced changes will show up > for 3.14 it shouldn't really matter which tree it goes through... In the absence of any strong opinion on the topic I have taken patch #8 into clk-next for 3.14. Regards, Mike > > Best regards, > Tomasz >