Quoting Tomasz Figa (2014-05-14 13:20:14) > Hi Mike, > > On 14.05.2014 22:13, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Kukjin Kim (2014-05-14 12:59:22) > >> On 05/15/14 03:03, Tomasz Figa wrote: > >> > >> Hi Mike, > >> > >> I've talked to Tomasz about current samsung related clock stuff. Since > >> they are mostly having dependency on samsung tree now not clock core > >> stuff, so would be better if it could be sent to upstream via samsung > >> tree. And as you know, updating arch/arm/ and clock stuff are usually > >> required for adding new SoC or supporting CCF newly... > > > > The Samsung clk pull requests only touch two arch/arm Kconfig files and > > one dtsi file. That's not a lot of arch/arm churn. Is there a strong > > reason that this needs to go through the samsung/arm-soc trees? > > Otherwise it should continue to go through the clk tree. > > Obviously they are patches for Samsung clock drivers. ;) > > The issue here is that there is a number of patches already merged in > Samsung tree on which the patches discussed here depend. OK, I think I misread the original email. I thought you were asking for future pull requests to go through the samsung tree, but you only mean the ones in this thread. No problem there. Acked-by: Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> Regards, Mike > > > > >> > >> How do you think? Basically I need your agreement for it. > > > > Based on the above pull requests I do not see the need for changing how > > code gets merged. > > As long as there are no dependencies on arch code and series being > applied do not touch arch code, this is perfectly fine. Unfortunately > this is rarely the case, at least for Samsung platforms and at least for > now. After we finish with arch clean-up and move all code to appropriate > subsystems, it should become easier, though. > > Best regards, > Tomasz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |