From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] clk: bcm281xx: add initial clock framework support Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 22:14:02 -0800 Message-ID: References: <529F4B0F.2020801@linaro.org> <529F4B4F.4020405@linaro.org> <20131214235731.26321.53050@quantum> <52ADE93B.3070907@linaro.org> <52AE81B3.4010203@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <52AE81B3.4010203@linaro.org> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alex Elder Cc: Christian Daudt , Ian Campbell , Mark Rutland , Pawel Moll , Rob Herring , Rob Landley , Russell King , Stephen Warren , Tim Kryger , "bcm-kernel-feedback-list@broadcom.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , LKML List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Alex Elder wrote: > In the mean time, I have created a new branch that > is based on v3.13-rc4 (and includes Tim's prerequisite > patches). Pull request (still wrapped my my mailer) > is below. Hi Alex, This isn't a mess but is pretty normal. Can you create a new branch with only your 2 clock patches applied on top of my clk-next branch? You should merge "ARM: dts: bcm281xx: define real clocks" through the arm-soc tree. Then you can send another pull request to me which has just the 2 bcm clock patches based on clk-next and everything will eventually end up linux-next all together. Just FYI if I took your pull request as-is then the clk-next tree would become polluted with lots of extra bcm patches. Regards, Mike