From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@ti.com (Turquette, Mike) Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:45:42 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 00/13] SPEAr: Move to common clock framework In-Reply-To: <201204171434.06178.arnd@arndb.de> References: <201204171434.06178.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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. Regards, Mike