From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thierry Reding Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 07/11] memory: tegra: Changes for v5.8-rc1 Date: Tue, 26 May 2020 13:40:54 +0200 Message-ID: <20200526114054.GA2935745@ulmo> References: <20200515145311.1580134-1-thierry.reding@gmail.com> <20200515145311.1580134-8-thierry.reding@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq" Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-clk-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: arm-soc , SoC Team , Jon Hunter , "open list:TEGRA ARCHITECTURE SUPPORT" , Linux ARM , linux-clk , Stephen Boyd , Michael Turquette List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:52:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:53 PM Thierry Reding = wrote: >=20 > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > memory: tegra: Changes for v5.8-rc1 > > > > Contains a few cleanup patches and an implementation to scale the EMC > > frequency on Tegra210 systems. >=20 > I don't mind taking the memory driver patches, but it seems odd that this > pull request has so many drivers/clk changes but does not mention that > in the pull request, and does not Cc the clk maintainers or include Acks > from them. >=20 > I would assume that the reason for this is that you have based > the memory controller changes on a branch that was already > accepted by the clk maintainers in to their tree, but when you do that > please be more explicit so I know what is going on. So historically there's often a lot of dependencies, either build-time or runtime, between Tegra clock patches and other work. That's why we ended up with this model where I collect Tegra clock patches in the Tegra tree and it's not uncommon to end up with the clock branch being a dependency of one of the other branches. I did send this to Mike and Stephen about 1 1/2 weeks ago, but it does not look like they've pulled it into the clk tree yet. I typically highlight the dependencies in the pull request, but looks like I forgot to do that this time around. > Waiting for clarification before I can pull this. Given the above, might be best to hold off on this for a bit until the clock branch was pulled by Mike or Stephen. Thierry --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEiOrDCAFJzPfAjcif3SOs138+s6EFAl7NAEEACgkQ3SOs138+ s6Fv6w/8Cu4dQWtsRKUDrg20jXHqNhVoKWh9ZIqXfZLZ6kbRuNF1Fov+dDUNJujN QqPjGh5YyFb3pwIDXK+EKBnPMi4BIDm2khwlL1Y6IgiOpgssfMLdB0SLZRZdHDnf dxvR2/yvNC6kjv7kDmc//1QuU+5k/JjmP6Mvqm5NsccJBNpsnlqzN5oMtZVJOYXo TOLKcRg0iRwkBJeeL20Q0HgikZCRUpazlhX/6ec4dclFpi6IrVwCBwKMpas77nzf cfW6IDba/sygJw5Xhcbj0Tk+aBTJ0OPmrwopAYunLO6vykjzlf9bYpbwesbJ3cbN ra1yLxUPM0y0wdEmPpHxzUQrDnPvgDpn2N7wrQN0TFMWvoeII75kh2cB6nChVhaE Lx2R/4TupCwMQjUOyULNRN+2y9cNdVoOb34Jl/nXwHD6XlWywZhJKEo5+jTSkG3e dmaxZS1WfkrCHEAdRkXNNQTSBznXBu6+yiKEN4GQRvOeEHmSWSnT1cVChVh94KES XRnAabAIne4kTqpS2gNugj1DrRytD1k2i2ZCsj/gVy8Qe/AY0rLmjXMSQOLFxdkO z9BBuZSLpkOAVvfAFCXpkJFOF8VDd699oyppGOp3fJyqVGPC34qEmvXW6qHzyUFp DaB2C2HMPOU3/fCn3QlSoSga8yJgBIXLj9l32h3eJ6eGTa3iZ5I= =8dgG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq--