On 06/25/2012 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: > Stephen, > > On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable(). >>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to >>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework. >> ... >>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the >>> I2C tree though. >> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately not as >> a series. > > so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch > based on your tree in place of linux-next? Yes, this patch should be applied through the Tegra tree, since it will be a dependency of the common clock framework switchover there, which I hope to take place this kernel cycle. I did just attempt to apply this patch to the for-3.6/common-clk branch, but it doesn't apply:-( Could you please rebase and resend. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
