On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 11:52:30PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 4:53 PM Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > memory: tegra: Changes for v5.8-rc1 > > > > Contains a few cleanup patches and an implementation to scale the EMC > > frequency on Tegra210 systems. > > I don't mind taking the memory driver patches, but it seems odd that this > pull request has so many drivers/clk changes but does not mention that > in the pull request, and does not Cc the clk maintainers or include Acks > from them. > > I would assume that the reason for this is that you have based > the memory controller changes on a branch that was already > accepted by the clk maintainers in to their tree, but when you do that > please be more explicit so I know what is going on. So historically there's often a lot of dependencies, either build-time or runtime, between Tegra clock patches and other work. That's why we ended up with this model where I collect Tegra clock patches in the Tegra tree and it's not uncommon to end up with the clock branch being a dependency of one of the other branches. I did send this to Mike and Stephen about 1 1/2 weeks ago, but it does not look like they've pulled it into the clk tree yet. I typically highlight the dependencies in the pull request, but looks like I forgot to do that this time around. > Waiting for clarification before I can pull this. Given the above, might be best to hold off on this for a bit until the clock branch was pulled by Mike or Stephen. Thierry
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
