linux-kernel - Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 0/6] clk: Initial feedback for off-SoC slow bus clocks

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMjpGUc51mg1vnj2PDk-=u=s7b0j0Qqm4nXLbugM5QsbshOZpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 11 Jul 2011 01:01:56 -0400
From:	Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>
To:	Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>
Cc:	Grant Likely <grant@...retlab.ca>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, patches@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [uclinux-dist-devel] [PATCH 0/6] clk: Initial feedback for
 off-SoC slow bus clocks

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@...ckfin.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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/