From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 07:09:43 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/04] ARM: shmobile: r8a7791 SCIF support Message-Id: <20130909070941.GA27194@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <20130904034525.12546.24775.sendpatchset@w520> <20130904034608.12546.79411.sendpatchset@w520> <20130909001524.GD21921@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 08:54:59AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 2:15 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 06:27:22PM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> Again this looks like it is piling up more legacy clk > >> code instead of moving to the new frameworks. > >> > >> Please include Mike Turquette on future postings of the > >> clk code, he's definately our best clock code reviewer. > > > > Perhaps I was a bit hasty, but I have already queued up these changes. > > And moreover I believe they are useful in their current form for > > back-porting to LTSI-3.4, which I have also already done. > > That sounds like you're a bit too trigger-happy ;-) Perhaps. > > So on those two counts my preference would be for any enhancements > > to be done as incremental patches on top of this series. > > Hm hm. I am worried that it is taken as an OK to proceed > extending old cruft for new SoCs rather than moving to new > frameworks. I would agree if such migration patches were > floating the lists but I am not aware of any patches starting > to create drivers/clk/sh*, are you? I am not aware of such patches. I will defer this to Magnus who is both the author of this series and I believe the person who knows the most about the plans for drivers/clk/sh*.