From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@ti.com (Turquette, Mike) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:22:06 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 00/13] SPEAr: Move to common clock framework In-Reply-To: <20120418211303.GE3852@pengutronix.de> References: <201204171434.06178.arnd@arndb.de> <20120418211303.GE3852@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:45:42PM -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Tuesday 17 April 2012, Viresh Kumar wrote: >> >> SPEAr now supports common clock framework. This patchset contains changes >> >> related to this. It also contain few dependency commits for clock framework that >> >> are earlier sent separately. >> >> >> >> @Mike: It would be easiest to get these through ARM-SoC tree. So, would need >> >> your Acked-by on these patches. But firstly they must get reivewed :) >> > >> > We should agree on how we want to do the common clk patches for v3.5. >> > The two options I see are either we take all the patches that Mike >> > Acks into arm-soc, or Mike applies the patches in his own tree and >> > submits them to arm-soc. I think either way is fine for me, but >> > some people might feel strongly one way or another. >> >> I would prefer the latter (I maintain a branch and submit it). ?Is >> arm-soc still the right place for common clk patches in 3.5 and >> beyond? ?I don't mind hosting a branch for inclusion into linux-next >> and sending a pull request to Linus. ?There is nothing ARM-specific >> about the common framework. > > Either way is fine with me, but it's really important that all the > floating clock framework patches begin to materialize in a visible > branch. Agreed. I've been busy the last several days with some tasks besides common clk maintenance, but I'm going through all the patches now and will have a -next branch up soon on git.linaro.org. Regards, Mike