From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.1 3/9] ARM: S3C24XX: enable usage of common dclk if common clock framework is enabled Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 07:47:57 +0900 Message-ID: <53714F9D.3010109@samsung.com> References: <2104342.rkElQpXtvM@phil> <1428172.jtv2HGWM9N@phil> <536D60B1.2070906@gmail.com> <3874492.Rok1zBObEC@phil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-pa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.220.52]:40339 "EHLO mail-pa0-f52.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750866AbaELWsH (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 May 2014 18:48:07 -0400 Received: by mail-pa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fa1so5247569pad.39 for ; Mon, 12 May 2014 15:48:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <3874492.Rok1zBObEC@phil> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Heiko_St=FCbner?= Cc: Tomasz Figa , Paul Bolle , Kukjin Kim , mturquette@linaro.org, t.figa@samsung.com, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 05/10/14 08:33, Heiko St=FCbner wrote: > Hi Tomasz, >>>>> It seems this one just hit linux-next (in next-20140509). >>>> >>>> Which is bad, because: >>>> a) it conflicts with patches already applied in samsung-clk tree, >>> >>> I remember seeing patches regarding more than one clk-samsung clock >>> providers. Do you need any additional changes for s3c24xx from me f= or >>> this? >> >> Yes, that's the problem here. If you could do it, I would appreciate= it, >> but if you don't have time then I can handle this. The changes neede= d >> are mostly trivial - basically every common samsung_clk function get= s >> new argument to a context structure. The branch to base on would be >> for_3.16/exynos5260 in samsung-clk tree. >> I think, would be better if we could fix the conflicts with Hekio's=20 additional patches...basically nobody wants revert something for next=20 tree once it is landed. But in this case, it's up to Tomasz... Probably, Heiko resubmitted? Is it based on the branch Tomasz memtioned= ,=20 I didn't check it yet?.. Tomasz, do you still want me to drop this series in samsung tree now?=20 Additional patches would be helpful to me because other dependency i.e.= ,=20 exynos5260...for me. >>>> b) the DT binding added by patch 4/9 has not been acked . >>> >>> I'm not 100% sure if this is necessary, as the binding is similar t= o most >>> other Samsung bindings and looking through recent clock binding cha= nges I >>> didn't find any that seemed to have a special dt-maintainer ack - >>> including >>> Exynos ones. Also if I remember correctly there was this "if we don= 't >>> respond, carry on" policy around :-) . >> >> Well, for me this could go as is, but rules should be followed and t= he >> rules are ACK or 3 weeks and a ping without response. So we need to = wait >> at least to next Wednesday to bypass DT review. > > so I only remembered the abbreviated version of this :-) [without the= 3 weeks > requirement]. My guess is I should be able to adapt it to this change= and also > fix the typo Paul found until then. > In my memory, not 3 weeks...maybe 1week or 10days?... - Kukjin