On 10/19, Gabriel Fernandez wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > > On 10/19/2016 01:51 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >On 10/14, gabriel.fernandez@xxxxxx wrote: > >>Gabriel Fernandez (6): > >> clk: stm32f4: Add LSI & LSE clocks > >> ARM: dts: stm32f429: add LSI and LSE clocks > >> arm: stmf32: Enable SYSCON > >> clk: stm32f4: Add RTC clock > >> clk: stm32f469: Add QSPI clock > >> ARM: dts: stm32f429: Add QSPI clock > >Can the clk patches be picked without causing problems for > >existing dt changes? Do you want an ack from clk maintainers > >instead of us picking the clk patches up? The series has > >intermingled clk and dts changes so I'm confused. > > > > Thanks for reviewing. > > Normally DT patches will be taken by STM32 maintainer, but yes there > is a dependency between patch 1 & 2, so if you push the patch 1 into > clk-next tree you have to take also patch 2. Let's break the dependency by making the required property optional or key off a different compatible string. As it stands right now applying patch 1 will cause things to break until the second patch lands which is not great. > > You have to be synchronized with Alexandre Torgue. > > I'd prefer zero synchronization. Please just send the clk patches the next time and leave the stuff for arm-soc out of the patch series. Thanks. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
