On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 01:09:28PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > On 4/14/20 12:31 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2020 at 02:58:32PM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > > From: Daniel Matuschek <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This patch imports the clock code from the Raspberry v5.5-y tree. The > > > ASoC machine driver initially present in this patch was dropped. The > > > comments are also dropped but all sign-offs are kept below. The patch > > > authorship was modified with explicit permission from Daniel Matuschek > > > to make sure it matches the Signed-off tag. > > > > > > This patch generates a lot of checkpatch.pl warnings that are > > > corrected in follow-up patches. > > > > I guess it will be waste of time to review this part without squashing it first. > > I wasn't sure if squashing was desired, so kept all my changes separate. At the end, yes. It's a new contribution that can be at least cleaned before hands to more-or-less acceptable point. With so many subtle issues it's not good that we dump an ugly code outside of drivers/staging. > There are some changes from the legacy clk to the clk_hw parts plus > introduction of ACPI support that are easier to review if kept separate. Yes, for review purposes it's okay. You always can put your name as a SoB + Co-developed-by tag or give credits to other people in the commit message differently (depending to amount of work they do vs. yours). > Maybe I should have squashed the cosmetic parts in patch8, and kept the > functional changes as separate patches. Use a common sense, you know your work better than me :-) Just explain this in cover letter (like you do for this version). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
