[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201405232327.52312.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 23:27:51 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
Cc: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>, arm@...nel.org,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel" <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Boris BREZILLON <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
"Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD" <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] at91: DT for 3.16 at91-dt3 #3
On Thursday 22 May 2014, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> Another AT91 DT pull-request for 3.16. This one is the conversion of two more
> SoC to Common Clock Framework (aka CCF). I identified it as a "DT" pull-request
> but it modifies slightly a couple of files in mach-at91 (use of a configuration
> option).
Four done, four more to go? Nice progress!
> This pull-request depends on:
> - the fixes that I already sent for 3.15 and that are present in the recent
> 3.15-rc6 tag.
> - the at91-cleanup tag that you integrated in your arm-soc/next/soc branch.
> So, as suggested by Arnd on IRC, I merged both of them to act as the base
> before adding the material for this pull-request.
>
> About the clock nodes that should be grouped in a "clocks" container or not,
> while waiting for a clear statement by the DT maintainers, I kept the clocks
> nodes as they had been written by Boris.
> As proposed by Olof, I plan to send you a comprehensive patch that fixes this
> when Mark gives his point of view.
Ok. I've merged it into next/dt now.
Arnd
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists