On 1 October 2015 at 19:35, Stephen Boyd <sboyd at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 10/01, Heiko St?bner wrote: >> Am Donnerstag, 1. Oktober 2015, 11:54:24 schrieb Ulf Hansson: >> > On 30 September 2015 at 16:55, Heiko St?bner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote: >> > > Am Mittwoch, 30. September 2015, 16:42:05 schrieb Ulf Hansson: >> > >> On 30 September 2015 at 16:07, Heiko Stuebner <heiko at sntech.de> wrote: >> > > The clock changes of course only touch internals of the phase-clocks, so >> > > should have no problem going through another tree. >> > >> > What happens if I take mmc and dt changes, wouldn't I need the clock >> > patches as well? >> >> The API stays of course the same, only the degree to settings translation gets >> optimized, so I guess in the worst case you would get no good phase and thus >> fall back to non-highspeed modes - but the system would stay running. >> >> But of course, if the clock maintainers could Ack the two clock patches and >> everything would stay together that would work even better :-) >> > > If Ulf doesn't want to take them we can apply them to clk tree. > Otherwise, you can have my acked-by on the clk patches. I don't mind picking up the clock patches. So I consider this as an ack for both patch 1 and patch2, thanks. Now, let's give Jaehoon some time to review the dw_mmc parts. Kind regards Uffe
