[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHbNUh0tJHXv52bA9hBDZMH0Pi+x9uC=LojcvgS=ONnCgEmVTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 09:33:50 +0530
From: Tushar Behera <tushar.behera@...aro.org>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Kgene Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <mark.brown@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND 1/4] clk: clk-s2mps11: Refactor for including
support for other MFD clocks
On 30 December 2013 03:47, Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org> wrote:
> Quoting Tushar Behera (2013-12-26 02:18:58)
>> The clocks in S2MPS11 and S5M8767 are managed in the same way, baring
>> a difference in the register offset. It would be better to update
>> existing S2MPS11 driver to support the clocks in S5M8767, rather than
>> creating an almost duplicate driver altogether.
>
> Can you rebase patches #1 & #2 onto clk-next? They do not apply cleanly
> as-is.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
>
Commit 1b1ccee1e821 "mfd: s2mps11: Fix build after regmap field rename
in sec-core.c" is also touching this file, which is in Mark's tree
right now. If I rebase
this patch on top clk-next, I am getting conflicts when I merge that
with linux-next.
Let me know how you want to handle this.
I am attaching the rebased patches for your reference.
If you want, I will send them again through git-send-email.
--
Tushar Behera
View attachment "0001-clk-clk-s2mps11-Refactor-for-including-support-for-o.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2904 bytes)
View attachment "0002-clk-clk-s2mps11-Add-support-for-clocks-in-S5M8767-MF.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (2224 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists