On 05/15/14 07:16, Tomasz Figa wrote:
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>
Mike, thanks for your ack on this whole pull-requests.
I will pull 1 to 4 into samsung tree for 3.16.
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).
Sounds great.
Thanks,
Kukjin
--
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
