On 15.05.2014 00:07, Mike Turquette wrote: > 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> Thanks. As you probably noticed with my pull request for 3.15, we've been getting quite a lot of burden due to dependencies between arch and clk patches lastly, but this is inevitable when we are moving things out of arch. The good news is that after patches from this pull request series, we will end up with just one, more or less active platform (s5pv210) that needs to be converted (and work already in progress). 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
 |