On 30.01.2024 12:11:44, Conor Dooley wrote: > 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. Feel free to take the whole series via the clock tree. Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Embedded Linux | https://www.pengutronix.de | Vertretung Nürnberg | Phone: +49-5121-206917-129 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-9 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
