From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752483Ab3AVJ25 (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:28:57 -0500 Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:59412 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751192Ab3AVJ2z (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jan 2013 04:28:55 -0500 Message-ID: <50FE5BC5.1020906@ti.com> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 11:28:37 +0200 From: Roger Quadros User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paul Walmsley CC: , , , , , , , , , , Rajendra Nayak , Benoit Cousson , Mike Turquette Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 19/22] ARM: OMAP3: clock data: get rid of unused USB host clock aliases and dummies References: <1358511445-26656-1-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <1358511445-26656-20-git-send-email-rogerq@ti.com> <50FD0BEF.9000007@ti.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 01/21/2013 05:03 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi > > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013, Roger Quadros wrote: > >> On 01/18/2013 10:27 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: >>> On Fri, 18 Jan 2013, Roger Quadros wrote: >>> >>>> We don't need multiple aliases for the OMAP USB host clocks and neither >>>> the dummy clocks so remove them. >>>> >>>> CC: Paul Walmsley >>>> CC: Rajendra Nayak >>>> CC: Benoit Cousson >>>> CC: Mike Turquette >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Roger Quadros >>>> Reviewed-by: Felipe Balbi >>>> Acked-by: Paul Walmsley >>> >>> Per Tony's earlier request, you can drop this patch and patch 20 from your >>> series now. I've got them queued for 3.10 or late 3.9 merge window. >>> >> >> Should have mentioned it earlier, but just this patch without the rest >> of the cleanup patches will break USB Host on OMAP3, as the old driver >> bails out if optional clock nodes are missing. >> >> Including patch 20 doesn't seem to cause a problem with OMAP4 though. > > I've got these two patches queued for merging after your other patches go > upstream -- e.g., probably 3.10. Do you foresee any problems with that? > That should be fine. Thanks :). -- cheers, -roger