On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 04:51:03PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thursday, April 23, 2015 02:03:08 PM Rajendra Nayak wrote: > >> Most users of PM clocks do the exact same thing in runtime callbacks. > >> Provide default callbacks and cleanup the existing users (keystone/davinci > >> /omap1/sh) > >> > >> Rajendra Nayak (5): > >> PM / clock_ops: Provide default runtime ops to users > >> arm: keystone: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS > >> arm: omap1: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS > >> arm: davinci: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS > >> drivers: sh: remove boilerplate code and use USE_PM_CLK_RUNTIME_OPS > >> > >> arch/arm/mach-davinci/pm_domain.c | 32 +------------------------- > >> arch/arm/mach-keystone/pm_domain.c | 33 +------------------------- > >> arch/arm/mach-omap1/pm_bus.c | 37 ++---------------------------- > >> drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> drivers/sh/pm_runtime.c | 47 ++------------------------------------ > >> include/linux/pm_clock.h | 10 ++++++++ > >> 6 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 143 deletions(-) > > > > It is not particularly clear to me who is supposed to apply this series, but > > I can do that if people don't have problems with that. > > All later patches depend on the first patch. > > For shmobile, Simon has queued up changes for drivers/sh/pm_runtime.c, > but I think they don't conflict with this series. Yes, that is the case. I have some patches (from Geert) queued up for v4.1. I have confirmed that they do not conflict with the shmobile (last) patch if this series. <details> The patches are in the sh-drivers-for-v4.1 branch of my renesas tree; I rebased them yesterday; they should hit next today if there is a next today; I plan to send a pull request to Linus in the not to distant future; and I envisage they should end up in v4.1-rc2 or rc3. </details> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 08:34:33AM -0700, santosh shilimkar wrote: > On 4/24/2015 7:41 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > >On Thursday, April 23, 2015 02:03:08 PM Rajendra Nayak wrote: [snip] > >It is not particularly clear to me who is supposed to apply this series, but > >I can do that if people don't have problems with that. > > > > > I am fine by that given dependency with first patch. > Another way is, you pick up the first patch and give us an > immutable branch. > > Either way is fine by me. Likewise. Here is an ack for the shmobile (last) patch if you decide to take it through your tree. Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
