On 22/04/2022 22:00, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Conor Dooley (2022-04-22 12:59:09) >> On 22/04/2022 20:39, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: >>> >>> Thanks. These generally look good to me, but I don't see acks from everyone. I'm perfectly fine treating these as fixes and taking them through the RISC-V tree, but looks like it's mostly clk stuff so >>> >>> Acked-by: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Ye, hopefully they go via clk. Stephen replied to v1 or 2 so >> I figure they're in his queue :) > > It helps to be explicit in the cover letter. It's in my queue but I put > it on hold because the cover letter didn't clarify what tree it was > intended for nor the priority of what is being fixed. Ah right, my bad. The coordinating things between trees stuff is still pretty new to me. If you could take the lot via clk, that'd be great? > Is boot broken? Do I need to send these up to Linus next week as part of > fixes for this merge window? Boot is not broken, I was hoping this would go into 5.18 to avoid having to deal with two different sorts of reference clock DT entries - 5.18 where the DT provides the mss pll & 5.18+n where the DT provides the input to the mss pll. So, not next week urgent, but as fixes for this window please. Thanks, Conor.
