On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 04:31:32PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 22.01.2024 14:56:09, Conor Dooley wrote: > > I think we already had this discussion on v1, where I said that the > > binding requires the clocks to be in that order, regardless of whether > > or not clock-names is provided. You feel more strongly about it than I > > do, so I will add them when I get around to sending a v3. > > Yes, this discussion sounded very familiar to me, never mind. Keep it as > is, and let's get this binding and the CAN driver upstream! BTW, I didn't see an ack on this nor do I see it in linux-next (yet). Are you expecting the patch to go with the rest via the clock tree, via the DT tree or will you be taking it with CAN stuff via netdev? I can resend this one patch with a netdev appropriate subject prefix if you like. Thanks, Conor.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
