From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751412AbaEWVbU (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2014 17:31:20 -0400 Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:53775 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751127AbaEWVbT (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 May 2014 17:31:19 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Nicolas Ferre Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: DT for 3.16 at91-dt3 #3 Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 23:27:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-35-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Olof Johansson , arm@kernel.org, Linux Kernel list , "linux-arm-kernel" , Alexandre Belloni , Boris BREZILLON , "Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" , Ludovic Desroches References: <1400775895-31183-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> In-Reply-To: <1400775895-31183-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201405232327.52312.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:YR2h7YrK13XVw1MrKbEb8eJD1N4CAvoQtaDSYgBzuNl SGV6ZwxjO7f+QwJIXKKA9G0jejlWoQYRO/OE/BhzXpcXFQFcai orEpJr+qYTY423XbSQ/eO5m+Gri9CctDKEwLfghsuoQhQyrHSV 3Hsk9su/BkrSOaGfDwYr7C6eo7zAgY0aKWanlGfBkpkdbJkYVH bqwkatn5m3AUJop7ngoAF2TYrdyxwPhPnSAXCLci2DUWzudSl6 ZJ7v98+2eKSjEbrctxAOEQZKtQPQ8CnyuDra0bgSEU9wo7cvo5 nCVkoI4Xir16k0fnCzpH/SCUDNYHzKiYB2RvG61zM/M4E9lKtH 40+zXRClnSJDS97wK+FU= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 22 May 2014, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Another AT91 DT pull-request for 3.16. This one is the conversion of two more > SoC to Common Clock Framework (aka CCF). I identified it as a "DT" pull-request > but it modifies slightly a couple of files in mach-at91 (use of a configuration > option). Four done, four more to go? Nice progress! > This pull-request depends on: > - the fixes that I already sent for 3.15 and that are present in the recent > 3.15-rc6 tag. > - the at91-cleanup tag that you integrated in your arm-soc/next/soc branch. > So, as suggested by Arnd on IRC, I merged both of them to act as the base > before adding the material for this pull-request. > > About the clock nodes that should be grouped in a "clocks" container or not, > while waiting for a clear statement by the DT maintainers, I kept the clocks > nodes as they had been written by Boris. > As proposed by Olof, I plan to send you a comprehensive patch that fixes this > when Mark gives his point of view. Ok. I've merged it into next/dt now. Arnd