From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753191AbcGFIR3 (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 04:17:29 -0400 Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:46589 "EHLO szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752183AbcGFIRY (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Jul 2016 04:17:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 v3] Add pl031 RTC support for Hi6220 To: Arnd Bergmann , John Stultz References: <1467247725-3665-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <3989688.6Bh7v9havA@wuerfel> CC: Olof Johansson , lkml , "arm@kernel.org" , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Guodong Xu , Zhangfei Gao From: Wei Xu Message-ID: <577CBDC0.6000600@hisilicon.com> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:13:52 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3989688.6Bh7v9havA@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.203.181.151] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.577CBDCD.0079,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 8cd03dfb81a0c146c61e67330fecb338 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Arnd, Olof, On 06/07/2016 08:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 12:20:15 AM CEST John Stultz wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:55 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:48:43PM -0700, John Stultz wrote: >>>>>> This patchset enables the pl031 RTC on the Hi6220 SoC. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd like to submit it to be merged. >>>>>> >>>>>> Wei has acked the second patch (modulo a whitespace fix which >>>>>> I've included in this v3), so it seems like both could go >>>>>> through the clk tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> But Wei also seemed open to pulling in a clk tree branch >>>>>> as it goes through arm-soc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Michael/Stephen: If there's no other objections, could you >>>>>> queue the first patch and make it avilable via the branch for >>>>>> Wei, or just take both patches? >>>>> >>>>> I happen to dread these kind of patchsets these days. There's added >>>>> dependencies across trees just because a defined name for the clock >>>>> number is added to a header file. >>>>> >>>>> I much prefer to use numerical clocks for one release, and then once >>>>> everything is in, switch over to the defines in the DTS. >>>>> >>>>> That way there are no dependencies, no need to setup a shared branch >>>>> for a simple 3-line patch, etc. >>>>> >>>>> So, mind respinning the DTS piece? >>>> >>>> Huh.. >>> >>> Sorry if it appeared random, I've complained about it for a while to >>> submaintainers. >> >> No.. I get it, the cross-maintainer shared branch is complex enough to >> want to avoid. I figured it would be easier to just take a maintainer >> acked patch in via the clk tree, but its not my tree, so I'll leave it >> to you maintainers to resolve. > > The question this raises is why that clock was missed the first time > around. I'd suggest whoever owns the clock driver can go through the > documentation again and look for others that may have been missed, > then send a patch to the driver to add *all* the missing ones for the > merge window, and one release later we add the driver depending on > previously unknown clocks. I have picked this patch based on the clk-hi6220-rtc which is based on 4.7-rc1 and am planning to send out the pull request which will distinguish the clk commits and dts commits. So should I continue to send out the pull request? Thanks! Best Regards, Wei Xu > > Arnd > > . >