[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <26653401-058f-7fda-9da5-5f2bfc945ca3@microchip.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2023 14:29:13 +0000
From: <Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com>
To: <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>, <mturquette@...libre.com>,
<sboyd@...nel.org>, <Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com>,
<alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] memory: atmel-sdramc: remove the driver
On 03.01.2023 15:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
>
> On 03/01/2023 13:45, Claudiu.Beznea@...rochip.com wrote:
>
>>>>> Uh, why does it depend? I understood the changset is bisectable and
>>>>> removal of unneeded driver will happen later. Otherwise it is not
>>>>> bisectable...
>>>>
>>>> AT91 devices will fail to boot if this patch is applied and 1/3 is not
>>>> there. This is because clock framework will disable DDR clocks because
>>>> there will be no consumer for them.
>>>
>>> This I understand, but why do you need this patch to be able to apply
>>> 1/3?
>>
>> To avoid having AT91 devices failing to boot in case your tree (containing
>> this patch) is merged first.
>
> But this patch is not going to be merged first. It will wait one more
> cycle, so the dependency is there.
OK. All good this way.
Thank you,
Claudiu
>
> If you need to make it in one cycle for some reason, then I would need
> stable tag with the clock patch.
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists