From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:23:08 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd To: Linus Walleij Cc: Michael Turquette , Philipp Zabel , linux-clk , Janos Laube , Paulius Zaleckas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Hans Ulli Kroll , Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: gemini: hands off PCI OE bit Message-ID: <20170809172308.GC2146@codeaurora.org> References: <20170808190818.11740-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20170809014312.GZ2146@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: List-ID: On 08/09, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 08/08, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> This bit is pin control, and needs to be carefully managed by the > >> new pin control driver. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij > > > > Fixes tag? > > It's not a fix, it'd just that we move the responsibility of managing the > pin from the clock driver to the pin control driver. > > I initially thought the Gemini would not need a separate pin control > driver because it was "simple" ... so these bits could be handled here > and there among the peripherals. Little did I know. Mea culpa. > > > Does this need to be merged now as a critical fix? Or we can wait > > on it for next release? > > Just put it in for the next release, thanks! > Alright. Thanks! -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2017 10:23:08 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] clk: gemini: hands off PCI OE bit In-Reply-To: References: <20170808190818.11740-1-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20170809014312.GZ2146@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20170809172308.GC2146@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/09, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 3:43 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 08/08, Linus Walleij wrote: > >> This bit is pin control, and needs to be carefully managed by the > >> new pin control driver. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij > > > > Fixes tag? > > It's not a fix, it'd just that we move the responsibility of managing the > pin from the clock driver to the pin control driver. > > I initially thought the Gemini would not need a separate pin control > driver because it was "simple" ... so these bits could be handled here > and there among the peripherals. Little did I know. Mea culpa. > > > Does this need to be merged now as a critical fix? Or we can wait > > on it for next release? > > Just put it in for the next release, thanks! > Alright. Thanks! -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project