lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Jul]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/2 v3] Add pl031 RTC support for Hi6220
From
Date
Hi Arnd, Olof,

On 06/07/2016 08:38, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 12:20:15 AM CEST John Stultz wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 12:04 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:55 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 05:48:43PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>>>>> This patchset enables the pl031 RTC on the Hi6220 SoC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd like to submit it to be merged.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wei has acked the second patch (modulo a whitespace fix which
>>>>>> I've included in this v3), so it seems like both could go
>>>>>> through the clk tree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Wei also seemed open to pulling in a clk tree branch
>>>>>> as it goes through arm-soc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michael/Stephen: If there's no other objections, could you
>>>>>> queue the first patch and make it avilable via the branch for
>>>>>> Wei, or just take both patches?
>>>>>
>>>>> I happen to dread these kind of patchsets these days. There's added
>>>>> dependencies across trees just because a defined name for the clock
>>>>> number is added to a header file.
>>>>>
>>>>> I much prefer to use numerical clocks for one release, and then once
>>>>> everything is in, switch over to the defines in the DTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> That way there are no dependencies, no need to setup a shared branch
>>>>> for a simple 3-line patch, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, mind respinning the DTS piece?
>>>>
>>>> Huh..
>>>
>>> Sorry if it appeared random, I've complained about it for a while to
>>> submaintainers.
>>
>> No.. I get it, the cross-maintainer shared branch is complex enough to
>> want to avoid. I figured it would be easier to just take a maintainer
>> acked patch in via the clk tree, but its not my tree, so I'll leave it
>> to you maintainers to resolve.
>
> The question this raises is why that clock was missed the first time
> around. I'd suggest whoever owns the clock driver can go through the
> documentation again and look for others that may have been missed,
> then send a patch to the driver to add *all* the missing ones for the
> merge window, and one release later we add the driver depending on
> previously unknown clocks.

I have picked this patch based on the clk-hi6220-rtc which is based on
4.7-rc1 and am planning to send out the pull request which will distinguish
the clk commits and dts commits.

So should I continue to send out the pull request?
Thanks!

Best Regards,
Wei Xu

>
> Arnd
>
> .
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-07-06 11:01    [W:0.080 / U:4.316 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site