[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <56F509E6.7080807@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:50:30 +0100
From: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>
To: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>
Cc: k.kozlowski@...sung.com, kgene@...nel.org, tomasz.figa@...il.com,
jh80.chung@...sung.com, andi.shyti@...sung.com,
inki.dae@...sung.com, sw0312.kim@...sung.com,
pankaj.dubey@...sung.com, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] clk: samsung: exynos3250: Add MMC2 clock
Hi Chanwoo,
On 03/25/2016 12:39 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/clock/exynos3250.h
> b/include/dt-bindings/clock/exynos3250.h
>> index ddb874130d86..c796ff02ceeb 100644
>> --- a/include/dt-bindings/clock/exynos3250.h
>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/clock/exynos3250.h
...
>> -#define CLK_NR_CLKS 249
>> +#define CLK_NR_CLKS 250
What do you think about putting all the changes to include/dt-bindings/
clock/exynos3250.h into a separate patch? Now in patch 3/8 there
is being changed again what was added in patch 2/8. However, my main
point is to have a minimum required in a common topic branch for the clk
and the arm-soc trees, so there is no need for arm-soc to pull all
the drives/clk changes.
It might not be that sensible in case of just those 2 patches in your
series, nevertheless it would be good to keep that in mind for future
submissions.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
Powered by blists - more mailing lists