Quoting Weiyi Lu (2019-02-25 20:00:50) > On Thu, 2019-02-21 at 23:48 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Matthias Brugger (2019-02-21 00:36:24) > > > > > > > > > On 20/02/2019 20:18, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > > What's the merge plan here? Do you want me to apply these patches to clk > > > > tree? Will someone be sending me a pull request for mediatek clk changes > > > > this cycle? It's getting pretty late for much of anything making this > > > > upcoming merge window. > > > > > > > > > > As far as I can see, the clock patches are independent, so I think it is OK to > > > take them. SCPSYS patches will go through my tree once they are in shape. > > > > Ok great. When patches for clks are interspersed throughout the patch > > series it makes me think that something later in the series depends on > > something that isn't a clk patch so then I can't apply it. > > > > Hi Stephen, > > Sorry for making such complex dependencies between the clk patches and > others in this series. And just like Matthias mentioned, the clock > patches are independent from others. I could resend a clock-only series > right away if each clock patch in v4 is qualified to merge into > clk-next. > If there still some provide need to be fixed, please let me know. I'll > fix them and send v5 only for clock. It looks like Matthias has some comments on the first patch that need to be addressed. I looked over the rest of the clk patches and they look ok at a quick glance. If you resend just the clk patches without the rest then I can probably apply them for the upcoming merge window.
