On 10/02/2015 04:06 PM, Heiko St?bner wrote: > Am Freitag, 2. Oktober 2015, 11:52:00 schrieb Jaehoon Chung: >> 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! :) > > I think Ulf wanted to apply the whole series via the mmc tree directly, but I > guess that is between you two to decide ;-) If it will get Stephen's acked-by, i will pick up all after checked the dwmmc patches. how about? Best Regards, Jaehoon Chung > > > Heiko >
