Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750760Ab2JHGcV (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2012 02:32:21 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:55753 "EHLO mail-lb0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752094Ab2JHGcR (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Oct 2012 02:32:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2779610.RIGYtRk86h@amdc1227> References: <1349093361-18820-1-git-send-email-thomas.abraham@linaro.org> <2779610.RIGYtRk86h@amdc1227> Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2012 12:02:15 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] ARM: Exynos4: Migrate to common clock framework. From: Thomas Abraham To: Tomasz Figa Cc: chander.kashyap@linaro.org, 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2273 Lines: 63 Hi Tomasz, Thanks for reviewing this patch series. On 3 October 2012 16:26, Tomasz Figa wrote: > Hi Chander, Thomas, > > On Monday 01 of October 2012 17:39:19 chander.kashyap@linaro.org wrote: >> From: Thomas Abraham >> >> 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. Ok. I got the sequence wrong and I have fixed this in the next version. > > 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. Right. > > 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)? The non-dt Exynos4 platforms require some effort to get basic device tree support into them. Until then, the common clock support for them are required. I have added device tree support as well in the second version of this patch series. Thanks, Thomas. > > 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/