From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755476Ab3BAEua (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:50:30 -0500 Received: from hqemgate04.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.35]:8041 "EHLO hqemgate04.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753641Ab3BAEu2 (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jan 2013 23:50:28 -0500 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqnvupgp07.nvidia.com on Thu, 31 Jan 2013 20:49:35 -0800 Message-ID: <510B496B.2030303@nvidia.com> Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 10:19:47 +0530 From: Prashant Gaikwad User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121011 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stephen Warren CC: Mike Turquette , Stephen Warren , "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com" , "linux@prisktech.co.nz" , "josh.cartwright@ni.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "arnd@linaro.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] clk: tegra: Use common of_clk_init() function References: <1357282858-2112-1-git-send-email-pgaikwad@nvidia.com> <1357282858-2112-2-git-send-email-pgaikwad@nvidia.com> <50E703A8.1080808@wwwdotorg.org> <50E793A0.4020702@nvidia.com> <20130124192043.10623.60751@quantum> <51018C55.6000709@wwwdotorg.org> <20130125005729.10623.61165@quantum> <51020D94.4010509@wwwdotorg.org> In-Reply-To: <51020D94.4010509@wwwdotorg.org> X-NVConfidentiality: public Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Friday 25 January 2013 10:14 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 01/24/2013 04:57 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: >> Quoting Stephen Warren (2013-01-24 11:32:37) >>> On 01/24/2013 11:20 AM, Mike Turquette wrote: >>>> Quoting Prashant Gaikwad (2013-01-04 18:44:48) >>>>> On Friday 04 January 2013 10:00 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>> On 01/04/2013 12:00 AM, Prashant Gaikwad wrote: >>>>>>> Use common of_clk_init() function for clocks initialization. >>>>>>> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra20.c | 3 ++- >>>>>>> drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra30.c | 3 ++- >>>>>> Oh, so this series is written assuming that the Tegra CCF rework is >>>>>> already applied then? That makes the dependencies quite painful, since I >>>>>> think we'll end up with the following order being needed: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) clk: Add composite clock type >>>>>> -> This would usually go through the clk tree. >>>>>> 2) The Tegra CCF rework series >>>>>> -> This must go through the Tegra tree due to lots of dependencies >>>>>> and merge conflicts with other Tegra patches. >>>>>> 3) This series >>>>>> -> This would usually go through the clk tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it possible to re-order the dependencies as (1) (3) (2), so that Mike >>>>>> can apply (1) and (3) to the clock tree, then I can use the clk tree as >>>>>> the basis for a branch in the Tegra tree to apply (2) and all the other >>>>>> Tegra patches that will conflict with (2)? >>>>> If Mike approves the concept and implementation in (1) and (3) then I >>>>> will repost (2) and (3) with dependencies re-ordered. >>>> Patch (1) still has some unaddressed comments, and is not a real >>>> dependency for this series. >>> I assume "Patch (1)" refers to the list of series a couple emails above, >>> not the first patch in the series you're replying to; that threw me for >>> a moment. >>> >>>> Since all of the patches have received their >>>> Tested-by's then I propose to merge all patches from this series into >>>> clk-next, which exception of patch 2/7 (the Tegra patch). >>>> >>>> This reduces your Tegra CCF conversion dependencies and you can role the >>>> necessary of_clk_init change into your Tegra CCF conversion branch (it >>>> has my implicit Ack and can be taken through your tree). >>>> >>>> Let me know if this is OK for you. >>> OK, I'm happy to merge your clock tree into the Tegra tree and then >>> apply 2/7 on top of the Tegra CCF work. >> Hmm, maybe the clk tree needs to be a dependency branch of arm-soc >> again, as it has in the past. Would that help with any Tegra merge >> pain? > Yes, I think that's what would end up happening if I merge the clk tree > into the Tegra tree anyway. Hi Mike, Have you merged these patches for 3.9?