On 10/02/2015 06:05 AM, Ulf Hansson wrote: > 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. I will check other patches on today, if it's ok, i will apply at my repository. Thanks for giving time! :) Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > > Kind regards > Uffe >
