2012-05-01 23:03:51

by Mike Turquette

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: add DT clock binding support

On 20120409-15:25, Rob Herring wrote:
> From: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
snip
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 117 ++++++++++++++++
> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/fixed-clock.txt | 22 +++
> drivers/clk/clk.c | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++
> drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 77 +++++++++++
> include/linux/clk-provider.h | 14 ++
> include/linux/clk.h | 19 +++
> 6 files changed, 389 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/fixed-clock.txt

Hi Rob,

Patches 1 & 2 are trivial and certainly aimed at clk-next, so I've taken
them in. This patch is a bit more difficult as it touches the common
clk code, clkdev/clk.h and some DT docs.

Are you looking for me to take this patch into clk-next? I'm just
trying to avoid any more clk dependency issues than we already have...

Thanks,
Mike


2012-05-14 13:40:07

by Rob Herring

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] clk: add DT clock binding support

On 05/01/2012 05:59 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> On 20120409-15:25, Rob Herring wrote:
>> From: Grant Likely <[email protected]>
> snip
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt | 117 ++++++++++++++++
>> .../devicetree/bindings/clock/fixed-clock.txt | 22 +++
>> drivers/clk/clk.c | 140 ++++++++++++++++++++
>> drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 77 +++++++++++
>> include/linux/clk-provider.h | 14 ++
>> include/linux/clk.h | 19 +++
>> 6 files changed, 389 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt
>> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/clock/fixed-clock.txt
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Patches 1 & 2 are trivial and certainly aimed at clk-next, so I've taken
> them in. This patch is a bit more difficult as it touches the common
> clk code, clkdev/clk.h and some DT docs.
>
> Are you looking for me to take this patch into clk-next? I'm just
> trying to avoid any more clk dependency issues than we already have...
>

I think that makes the most sense as it appears I'm dependent on
clk-next now. I'm rebasing my patches on clk-next now.

Rob