From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 0/6] clk: Initial feedback for
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:01:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMjpGUc51mg1vnj2PDk-=u=s7b0j0Qqm4nXLbugM5QsbshOZpg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4x_e0OR8dV=n-zodi8Sr4SZkU6o6gJK13UpZrgTzZQvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 00:56, Barry Song wrote:
> 2011/7/11 Mike Frysinger:
>> On Sunday, July 10, 2011 23:57:40 Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:53:44AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Linus, CCing you in as apparently you're taking over the clock API work.
>>> Do you need me to forward all the patches to you?
>>
>> along these lines, i dont think the new people on the cc noticed my earlier e-
>> mail:
>> for future series, could you cc uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org ? we
>> dont do clock management on Blackfin parts atm, but it's something we would
>> like to start doing. our hardware can easily benefit from this.
>
> Except that, AFAIK, arch/blackfin/mach-xxx is much similar with
> arch/arm/mach-xxx with a lot of platform, i2c, spi board information.
> it is probably we can also benefit from device tree as what ARM is
> doing.
i dont think device trees are a requirement for the clock api
> but not sure whether it is really worthwhile for the current situation
> and long term plan of blackfin. Anyway, there are not so many blackfin
> SoC and boards as ARM.
there are not plans for device tree support. no customers have asked
for it, and we arent in the arm situation where we have a distro (like
Ubuntu) riding us to have a single build boot on all the different
platforms.
-mike
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
To: Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant@secretlab.ca>,
Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@stericsson.com>,
linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 0/6] clk: Initial feedback for off-SoC slow bus clocks
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:01:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMjpGUc51mg1vnj2PDk-=u=s7b0j0Qqm4nXLbugM5QsbshOZpg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4x_e0OR8dV=n-zodi8Sr4SZkU6o6gJK13UpZrgTzZQvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 00:56, Barry Song wrote:
> 2011/7/11 Mike Frysinger:
>> On Sunday, July 10, 2011 23:57:40 Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:53:44AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Linus, CCing you in as apparently you're taking over the clock API work.
>>> Do you need me to forward all the patches to you?
>>
>> along these lines, i dont think the new people on the cc noticed my earlier e-
>> mail:
>> for future series, could you cc uclinux-dist-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org ? we
>> dont do clock management on Blackfin parts atm, but it's something we would
>> like to start doing. our hardware can easily benefit from this.
>
> Except that, AFAIK, arch/blackfin/mach-xxx is much similar with
> arch/arm/mach-xxx with a lot of platform, i2c, spi board information.
> it is probably we can also benefit from device tree as what ARM is
> doing.
i dont think device trees are a requirement for the clock api
> but not sure whether it is really worthwhile for the current situation
> and long term plan of blackfin. Anyway, there are not so many blackfin
> SoC and boards as ARM.
there are not plans for device tree support. no customers have asked
for it, and we arent in the arm situation where we have a distro (like
Ubuntu) riding us to have a single build boot on all the different
platforms.
-mike
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: vapier@gentoo.org (Mike Frysinger)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 0/6] clk: Initial feedback for off-SoC slow bus clocks
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:01:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMjpGUc51mg1vnj2PDk-=u=s7b0j0Qqm4nXLbugM5QsbshOZpg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGsJ_4x_e0OR8dV=n-zodi8Sr4SZkU6o6gJK13UpZrgTzZQvbQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 00:56, Barry Song wrote:
> 2011/7/11 Mike Frysinger:
>> On Sunday, July 10, 2011 23:57:40 Mark Brown wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 11:53:44AM +0900, Mark Brown wrote:
>>> Linus, CCing you in as apparently you're taking over the clock API work.
>>> Do you need me to forward all the patches to you?
>>
>> along these lines, i dont think the new people on the cc noticed my earlier e-
>> mail:
>> for future series, could you cc uclinux-dist-devel at blackfin.uclinux.org ? ?we
>> dont do clock management on Blackfin parts atm, but it's something we would
>> like to start doing. ?our hardware can easily benefit from this.
>
> Except that, AFAIK, arch/blackfin/mach-xxx is much similar with
> arch/arm/mach-xxx with a lot of platform, i2c, spi board information.
> it is probably we can also benefit from device tree as what ARM is
> doing.
i dont think device trees are a requirement for the clock api
> but not sure whether it is really worthwhile for the current situation
> and long term plan of blackfin. Anyway, there are not so many blackfin
> SoC and boards as ARM.
there are not plans for device tree support. no customers have asked
for it, and we arent in the arm situation where we have a distro (like
Ubuntu) riding us to have a single build boot on all the different
platforms.
-mike
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-11 5:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 72+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-11 2:53 [PATCH 0/6] clk: Initial feedback for off-SoC slow bus clocks Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` [PATCH 1/6] clk: Prototype and document clk_register() Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` [PATCH 2/6] clk: Provide a dummy clk_unregister() Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` [PATCH 3/6] clk: Constify struct clk_hw_ops Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` [PATCH 4/6] clk: Add Kconfig option to build all generic clk drivers Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock provider Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 9:34 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 9:34 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock provider Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 9:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 10:53 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock Mark Brown
2011-07-11 10:53 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock provider Mark Brown
2011-07-11 10:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 11:11 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 11:11 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock provider Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 11:11 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 11:41 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock Mark Brown
2011-07-11 11:41 ` [PATCH 5/6] clk: Support multiple instances of the same clock provider Mark Brown
2011-07-11 11:41 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` [PATCH 6/6] clk: Add initial WM831x clock driver Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 2:53 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-15 2:53 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-15 2:53 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-15 2:53 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-15 5:05 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-15 5:05 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-15 5:05 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-15 5:14 ` Ryan Mallon
2011-07-15 5:14 ` Ryan Mallon
2011-07-15 5:14 ` Ryan Mallon
2011-07-15 2:53 ` [PATCH 1/6] clk: Prototype and document clk_register() Grant Likely
2011-07-15 2:53 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-15 2:53 ` Grant Likely
2011-07-11 3:57 ` [PATCH 0/6] clk: Initial feedback for off-SoC slow bus clocks Mark Brown
2011-07-11 3:57 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 3:57 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 4:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-07-11 4:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-07-11 4:30 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-07-11 4:56 ` Barry Song
2011-07-11 4:56 ` Barry Song
2011-07-11 4:56 ` Barry Song
2011-07-11 5:01 ` Mike Frysinger [this message]
2011-07-11 5:01 ` [uclinux-dist-devel] " Mike Frysinger
2011-07-11 5:01 ` Mike Frysinger
2011-07-11 9:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 9:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 9:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 10:07 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-07-11 10:07 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-07-11 10:07 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-07-11 10:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 10:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 10:28 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-07-11 10:46 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-07-11 10:46 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-07-11 10:46 ` Sascha Hauer
2011-07-11 11:43 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 11:43 ` Mark Brown
2011-07-11 11:43 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAMjpGUc51mg1vnj2PDk-=u=s7b0j0Qqm4nXLbugM5QsbshOZpg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=vapier@gentoo.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.