Hi Mike, Stephen, Arnd, Olof, Kevin,
Is the merge strategy [see ##### below] OK for you?
Thanks a lot!
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 02:00:24PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Currently the R-Car Clock Pulse Generator (CPG) drivers obtains the
>> > state of the mode pins either by a call from the platform code, or
>> > directly by using a hardcoded register access. This is a bit messy, and
>> > creates a dependency between driver and platform code.
>> >
>> > This patch series converts the various Renesas R-Car clock drivers
>> > and support code from reading the mode pin states using a hardcoded
>> > register access to using a new minimalistic R-Car RST driver.
>> >
>> > All R-Car clock drivers will rely on the presence in DT of a device node
>> > for the RST module. Backwards compatibility with old DTBs is retained
>> > only for R-Car Gen2, which has fallback code using its own private copy
>> > of rcar_gen2_read_mode_pins().
>> >
>> > After this, there is still one remaining user of
>> > rcar_gen2_read_mode_pins() left in platform code. A patch series to
>> > remove that user has already been posted, though ("[PATCH/RFT 0/4] ARM:
>> > shmobile: R-Car Gen2: Allow booting secondary CPU cores in debug mode").
>> > Since v3, the other user has been removed in commit 9f5ce39ddb8f68b3
>> > ("ARM: shmobile: rcar-gen2: Obtain extal frequency from DT").
>> >
>> > This series consists of 5 parts:
>> > A. Patches 1 and 2 add DT bindings and driver code for the R-Car RST
>> > driver,
>> > B. Patches 3-11 add device nodes for the RST modules to the R-Car DTS
>> > files,
>> > C. Patches 12-17 convert the clock drivers to call into the new R-Car
>> > RST driver,
>> > D. Patches 18-20 remove passing mode pin state to the clock drivers
>> > from the platform code,
>> > E. Patches 21-23 remove dead code from the clock drivers.
>> >
>> > As is usually the case with moving functionality from platform code to
>> > DT, there are lots of hard dependencies:
>> > - The DT updates in Part B can be merged as soon as the DT bindings in
>> > Part A have been approved,
>> > - The clock driver updates in Part C depend functionally on the driver
>> > code in Part A, and on the DT updates in Part B,
>> > - The board code cleanups in Part D depend on the clock driver updates
>> > in Part C,
>> > - The block driver cleanups in part E depend on the board code
>> > cleanups in part D.
>> >
>> > Hence to maintain the required lockstep between SoC driver, clock
>> > drivers, shmobile platform code, and shmobile DT, I propose to queue up
>> > all patches in a single branch against v4.9-rc1, and send pull requests
>> > to both Mike/Stephen (clock) and Simon (rest).
>> >
>> > ***
>>
>> > - Mike/Stephen/Simon/Magnus: Are you OK with the suggested merge
>> > approach above?
>>
>> Is this OK for you?
#####
(link to the full series at
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/linux.kernel/fLSFsjOgPT8)
>>
>> I'd like to move forward with this, as this is a prerequisite for adding
>> support for new SoCs (RZ/G) without adding more copies of
>> rcar_gen2_read_mode_pins(), and removing that function from platform code
>> for good.
>
> This seems reasonable to me but likely the ARM SoC maintainers will want to
> know about this plan before it is executed.
OK, adding more people in the loop...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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
