From: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
To: chander.kashyap@linaro.org
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
        kgene.kim@samsung.com, mturquette@linaro.org, mturquette@ti.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: Exynos4: Migrate to common clock framework.
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2012 09:26:50 +0200
Message-id: <2779610.RIGYtRk86h@amdc1227>
Organization: Samsung Poland R&D Center
User-Agent: KMail/4.9.1 (Linux/3.5.3-gentoo; KDE/4.9.1; x86_64; ; )
In-reply-to: <1349093361-18820-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
References: <1349093361-18820-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7Bit
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1766
Lines: 43

Hi Chander, Thomas,

On Monday 01 of October 2012 17:39:19 chander.kashyap@linaro.org wrote:
> From: Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@linaro.org>
> 
> This patch series migrates Exynos4 clock support to common clock
> framework. The first patch in this series removes the existing Exynos4
> clock support that uses the Samsung specific clock framework. The second
> patch in this series add Exynos4 clock support using common clock
> framework.
> 
> Thomas Abraham (2):
>   ARM: Exynos4: Remove Samsung clock type support
>   ARM: Exynos4: Register clocks via common clock framework

I think the order of changes is a little bit off here:
 - patch 1 will break all exynos4-based boards (what about bisects?)
 - patch 2 will be still broken until all related drivers get converted to 
use clk_prepare(_enable) and clk_(disable_)unprepare.

Shouldn't the order be exactly opposite, i.e.:
 - all the patches for prepare/unprepare first
 - then the patch adding common clock frameworks support for exynos4 
(disabling the old clock code)
 - and finally the patch removing remaining (disabled by previous patch) 
code.

Also, I assume that these patches doesn't consider native device tree 
support (without auxdata, using OF-based clock lookup), correct me if I'm 
wrong. If I'm right, since Exynos SoCs are going to be DT-only, is there 
really a point for adding common clock framework support for non-DT 
platforms (which are going to be eventually dropped anyway)?

Best regards,
-- 
Tomasz Figa
Samsung Poland R&D Center

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/