* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
@ 2013-11-21 2:07 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2013-11-21 8:26 ` Laurent Pinchart
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2013-11-21 2:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Laurent
> From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
>
> When enabling some of the module clocks by clearing stop bits in the
> MSTP control registers, the CPG requires waiting for the status
> registers to signal that the clocks have started. Failure to do so will
> result in returning from the clk_enable() call with the clock
> potentially still disabled, leading to various race conditions and
> difficult to debug errors.
>
> Enable status wait for all the r8a7779 MSTP clocks that report their
> status.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c | 26 ++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> index b7ce0e7..1955738 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> @@ -52,12 +52,6 @@
> #define MSTPCR1 IOMEM(0xffc80034)
> #define MSTPCR3 IOMEM(0xffc8003c)
> #define MSTPSR1 IOMEM(0xffc80044)
> -#define MSTPSR4 IOMEM(0xffc80048)
> -#define MSTPSR6 IOMEM(0xffc8004c)
> -#define MSTPCR4 IOMEM(0xffc80050)
> -#define MSTPCR5 IOMEM(0xffc80054)
> -#define MSTPCR6 IOMEM(0xffc80058)
> -#define MSTPCR7 IOMEM(0xffc80040)
Why do you remove these MSTPCRx in this patch ?
It is out-of this purpose
> #define MODEMR 0xffcc0020
>
> @@ -127,16 +121,16 @@ static struct clk mstp_clks[MSTP_NR] = {
> [MSTP322] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR3, 22, 0), /* SDHI1 */
> [MSTP321] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR3, 21, 0), /* SDHI2 */
> [MSTP320] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR3, 20, 0), /* SDHI3 */
> - [MSTP120] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 20, 0), /* VIN3 */
> - [MSTP116] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 16, 0), /* PCIe */
> - [MSTP115] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 15, 0), /* SATA */
> - [MSTP114] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 14, 0), /* Ether */
> - [MSTP110] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 10, 0), /* VIN0 */
> - [MSTP109] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 9, 0), /* VIN1 */
> - [MSTP108] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 8, 0), /* VIN2 */
> - [MSTP103] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 3, 0), /* DU */
> - [MSTP101] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 1, 0), /* USB2 */
> - [MSTP100] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 0, 0), /* USB0/1 */
> + [MSTP120] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 20, MSTPSR1, 0), /* VIN3 */
> + [MSTP116] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 16, MSTPSR1, 0), /* PCIe */
> + [MSTP115] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 15, MSTPSR1, 0), /* SATA */
> + [MSTP114] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 14, MSTPSR1, 0), /* Ether */
> + [MSTP110] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 10, MSTPSR1, 0), /* VIN0 */
> + [MSTP109] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 9, MSTPSR1, 0), /* VIN1 */
> + [MSTP108] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 8, MSTPSR1, 0), /* VIN2 */
> + [MSTP103] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 3, MSTPSR1, 0), /* DU */
> + [MSTP101] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 1, MSTPSR1, 0), /* USB2 */
> + [MSTP100] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 0, MSTPSR1, 0), /* USB0/1 */
> [MSTP030] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR0, 30, 0), /* I2C0 */
> [MSTP029] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR0, 29, 0), /* I2C1 */
> [MSTP028] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR0, 28, 0), /* I2C2 */
> --
> 1.8.3.2
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sh" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-21 2:07 ` Kuninori Morimoto
@ 2013-11-21 8:26 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-25 0:05 ` Kuninori Morimoto
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-11-21 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Morimoto-san,
On Wednesday 20 November 2013 18:07:24 Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi Laurent
>
> > From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> >
> > When enabling some of the module clocks by clearing stop bits in the
> > MSTP control registers, the CPG requires waiting for the status
> > registers to signal that the clocks have started. Failure to do so will
> > result in returning from the clk_enable() call with the clock
> > potentially still disabled, leading to various race conditions and
> > difficult to debug errors.
> >
> > Enable status wait for all the r8a7779 MSTP clocks that report their
> > status.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
> > <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> > ---
> >
> > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c | 26 ++++++++++----------------
> > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c index b7ce0e7..1955738 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > @@ -52,12 +52,6 @@
> >
> > #define MSTPCR1 IOMEM(0xffc80034)
> > #define MSTPCR3 IOMEM(0xffc8003c)
> > #define MSTPSR1 IOMEM(0xffc80044)
> >
> > -#define MSTPSR4 IOMEM(0xffc80048)
> > -#define MSTPSR6 IOMEM(0xffc8004c)
> > -#define MSTPCR4 IOMEM(0xffc80050)
> > -#define MSTPCR5 IOMEM(0xffc80054)
> > -#define MSTPCR6 IOMEM(0xffc80058)
> > -#define MSTPCR7 IOMEM(0xffc80040)
>
> Why do you remove these MSTPCRx in this patch ?
> It is out-of this purpose
I've removed them as they're unused. This could be split to a separate patch
if preferred, I've just thought it would be overkill.
> > #define MODEMR 0xffcc0020
> >
> > @@ -127,16 +121,16 @@ static struct clk mstp_clks[MSTP_NR] = {
> >
> > [MSTP322] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR3, 22, 0), /* SDHI1 */
> > [MSTP321] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR3, 21, 0), /* SDHI2 */
> > [MSTP320] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR3, 20, 0), /* SDHI3 */
> >
> > - [MSTP120] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 20, 0), /* VIN3 */
> > - [MSTP116] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 16, 0), /* PCIe */
> > - [MSTP115] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 15, 0), /* SATA */
> > - [MSTP114] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 14, 0), /* Ether */
> > - [MSTP110] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 10, 0), /* VIN0 */
> > - [MSTP109] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 9, 0), /* VIN1 */
> > - [MSTP108] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 8, 0), /* VIN2 */
> > - [MSTP103] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 3, 0), /* DU */
> > - [MSTP101] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 1, 0), /* USB2 */
> > - [MSTP100] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 0, 0), /* USB0/1 */
> > + [MSTP120] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 20, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > VIN3 */
> > + [MSTP116] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 16, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > PCIe */
> > + [MSTP115] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 15, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > SATA */
> > + [MSTP114] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 14, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > Ether */
> > + [MSTP110] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 10, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > VIN0 */
> > + [MSTP109] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 9, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > VIN1 */
> > + [MSTP108] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 8, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > VIN2 */
> > + [MSTP103] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clks_clk, MSTPCR1, 3, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > DU */
> > + [MSTP101] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 1, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > USB2 */
> > + [MSTP100] = SH_CLK_MSTP32_STS(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR1, 0, MSTPSR1, 0), /*
> > USB0/1 */>
> > [MSTP030] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR0, 30, 0), /* I2C0 */
> > [MSTP029] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR0, 29, 0), /* I2C1 */
> > [MSTP028] = SH_CLK_MSTP32(&clkp_clk, MSTPCR0, 28, 0), /* I2C2 */
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-21 2:07 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2013-11-21 8:26 ` Laurent Pinchart
@ 2013-11-25 0:05 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2013-11-25 0:08 ` Laurent Pinchart
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2013-11-25 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Laurent, Simon
> > > From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> > >
> > > When enabling some of the module clocks by clearing stop bits in the
> > > MSTP control registers, the CPG requires waiting for the status
> > > registers to signal that the clocks have started. Failure to do so will
> > > result in returning from the clk_enable() call with the clock
> > > potentially still disabled, leading to various race conditions and
> > > difficult to debug errors.
> > >
> > > Enable status wait for all the r8a7779 MSTP clocks that report their
> > > status.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
> > > <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c | 26 ++++++++++----------------
> > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c index b7ce0e7..1955738 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > @@ -52,12 +52,6 @@
> > >
> > > #define MSTPCR1 IOMEM(0xffc80034)
> > > #define MSTPCR3 IOMEM(0xffc8003c)
> > > #define MSTPSR1 IOMEM(0xffc80044)
> > >
> > > -#define MSTPSR4 IOMEM(0xffc80048)
> > > -#define MSTPSR6 IOMEM(0xffc8004c)
> > > -#define MSTPCR4 IOMEM(0xffc80050)
> > > -#define MSTPCR5 IOMEM(0xffc80054)
> > > -#define MSTPCR6 IOMEM(0xffc80058)
> > > -#define MSTPCR7 IOMEM(0xffc80040)
> >
> > Why do you remove these MSTPCRx in this patch ?
> > It is out-of this purpose
>
> I've removed them as they're unused. This could be split to a separate patch
> if preferred, I've just thought it would be overkill.
Yes, they are not used, but it doesn't have relationship to this patch.
(and, do we really need to remove these ?)
This is not super big deal,
but I was ordered many times not to do such things at other ML.
Let's follow the opinion of Simon.
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-25 0:05 ` Kuninori Morimoto
@ 2013-11-25 0:08 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-25 0:23 ` Kuninori Morimoto
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-11-25 0:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Morimoto-san,
On Sunday 24 November 2013 16:05:42 Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> Hi Laurent, Simon
>
> > > > From: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
> > > >
> > > > When enabling some of the module clocks by clearing stop bits in the
> > > > MSTP control registers, the CPG requires waiting for the status
> > > > registers to signal that the clocks have started. Failure to do so
> > > > will result in returning from the clk_enable() call with the clock
> > > > potentially still disabled, leading to various race conditions and
> > > > difficult to debug errors.
> > > >
> > > > Enable status wait for all the r8a7779 MSTP clocks that report their
> > > > status.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
> > > > <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c | 26 ++++++++++--------------
> > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > > b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c index b7ce0e7..1955738 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/clock-r8a7779.c
> > > > @@ -52,12 +52,6 @@
> > > >
> > > > #define MSTPCR1 IOMEM(0xffc80034)
> > > > #define MSTPCR3 IOMEM(0xffc8003c)
> > > > #define MSTPSR1 IOMEM(0xffc80044)
> > > >
> > > > -#define MSTPSR4 IOMEM(0xffc80048)
> > > > -#define MSTPSR6 IOMEM(0xffc8004c)
> > > > -#define MSTPCR4 IOMEM(0xffc80050)
> > > > -#define MSTPCR5 IOMEM(0xffc80054)
> > > > -#define MSTPCR6 IOMEM(0xffc80058)
> > > > -#define MSTPCR7 IOMEM(0xffc80040)
> > >
> > > Why do you remove these MSTPCRx in this patch ?
> > > It is out-of this purpose
> >
> > I've removed them as they're unused. This could be split to a separate
> > patch if preferred, I've just thought it would be overkill.
>
> Yes, they are not used, but it doesn't have relationship to this patch.
I've considered the change to be related, at this patch fixes the MSTP clock
definitions. Of course if you disagree I'm fine with removing this change.
> (and, do we really need to remove these ?)
They're not used, so I thought it would be good to remove them.
> This is not super big deal,
> but I was ordered many times not to do such things at other ML.
>
> Let's follow the opinion of Simon.
Sounds good to me :-)
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-25 0:08 ` Laurent Pinchart
@ 2013-11-25 0:23 ` Kuninori Morimoto
2013-11-25 3:36 ` Simon Horman
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Kuninori Morimoto @ 2013-11-25 0:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Laurent, Simon
> > > I've removed them as they're unused. This could be split to a separate
> > > patch if preferred, I've just thought it would be overkill.
> >
> > Yes, they are not used, but it doesn't have relationship to this patch.
>
> I've considered the change to be related, at this patch fixes the MSTP clock
> definitions. Of course if you disagree I'm fine with removing this change.
>
> > (and, do we really need to remove these ?)
>
> They're not used, so I thought it would be good to remove them.
>
> > This is not super big deal,
> > but I was ordered many times not to do such things at other ML.
> >
> > Let's follow the opinion of Simon.
>
> Sounds good to me :-)
Thank you :)
Sorry for my picky comment :P
Simon, we need your opinion.
Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-25 0:23 ` Kuninori Morimoto
@ 2013-11-25 3:36 ` Simon Horman
2013-11-25 14:19 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-26 0:26 ` Simon Horman
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2013-11-25 3:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 04:23:50PM -0800, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
>
> Hi Laurent, Simon
>
> > > > I've removed them as they're unused. This could be split to a separate
> > > > patch if preferred, I've just thought it would be overkill.
> > >
> > > Yes, they are not used, but it doesn't have relationship to this patch.
> >
> > I've considered the change to be related, at this patch fixes the MSTP clock
> > definitions. Of course if you disagree I'm fine with removing this change.
> >
> > > (and, do we really need to remove these ?)
> >
> > They're not used, so I thought it would be good to remove them.
> >
> > > This is not super big deal,
> > > but I was ordered many times not to do such things at other ML.
> > >
> > > Let's follow the opinion of Simon.
> >
> > Sounds good to me :-)
>
> Thank you :)
> Sorry for my picky comment :P
>
> Simon, we need your opinion.
I would prefer separate patches.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-25 3:36 ` Simon Horman
@ 2013-11-25 14:19 ` Laurent Pinchart
2013-11-26 0:26 ` Simon Horman
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Laurent Pinchart @ 2013-11-25 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Simon,
On Monday 25 November 2013 12:36:31 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 04:23:50PM -0800, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> > Hi Laurent, Simon
> >
> > > > > I've removed them as they're unused. This could be split to a
> > > > > separate patch if preferred, I've just thought it would be overkill.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, they are not used, but it doesn't have relationship to this
> > > > patch.
> > >
> > > I've considered the change to be related, at this patch fixes the MSTP
> > > clock definitions. Of course if you disagree I'm fine with removing
> > > this change.
> > > >
> > > > (and, do we really need to remove these ?)
> > >
> > > They're not used, so I thought it would be good to remove them.
> > >
> > > > This is not super big deal,
> > > > but I was ordered many times not to do such things at other ML.
> > > >
> > > > Let's follow the opinion of Simon.
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me :-)
> >
> > Thank you :)
> > Sorry for my picky comment :P
> >
> > Simon, we need your opinion.
>
> I would prefer separate patches.
OK, I'll resubmit this patch without the removal of the unused macros. As
you've originally submitted a patch to remove the macros, would you like to
rebase it on top of this, or should I include one in the repost ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks
2013-11-13 15:52 [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: shmobile: r8a7779: Wait for status on selected MSTP clocks Laurent Pinchart
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2013-11-25 14:19 ` Laurent Pinchart
@ 2013-11-26 0:26 ` Simon Horman
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2013-11-26 0:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 03:19:23PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On Monday 25 November 2013 12:36:31 Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 04:23:50PM -0800, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> > > Hi Laurent, Simon
> > >
> > > > > > I've removed them as they're unused. This could be split to a
> > > > > > separate patch if preferred, I've just thought it would be overkill.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, they are not used, but it doesn't have relationship to this
> > > > > patch.
> > > >
> > > > I've considered the change to be related, at this patch fixes the MSTP
> > > > clock definitions. Of course if you disagree I'm fine with removing
> > > > this change.
> > > > >
> > > > > (and, do we really need to remove these ?)
> > > >
> > > > They're not used, so I thought it would be good to remove them.
> > > >
> > > > > This is not super big deal,
> > > > > but I was ordered many times not to do such things at other ML.
> > > > >
> > > > > Let's follow the opinion of Simon.
> > > >
> > > > Sounds good to me :-)
> > >
> > > Thank you :)
> > > Sorry for my picky comment :P
> > >
> > > Simon, we need your opinion.
> >
> > I would prefer separate patches.
>
> OK, I'll resubmit this patch without the removal of the unused macros. As
> you've originally submitted a patch to remove the macros, would you like to
> rebase it on top of this, or should I include one in the repost ?
I can rebase that patch, seeing as its mine.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread