On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 12:12:02AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:

On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 09:56:21AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 07 September 2011 14:05:03 Shawn Guo wrote:

quoted

quoted

My feeling is that this time, we should wait for the common clock
framework to get in and simplify this. I believe Thomas is now planning
to do this, but I haven't followed what the current state is.

Sadly, if this is the position of entire arm-soc maintainer group,
I think I have made a wrong decision to start upstreaming imx6q now.

We haven't discussed it as a group, it's my own opinion.

Hi Thomas, Grant,

Could you please share your opinion here?

I really do not see the hope that clock framework and device tree
binding could possibly catch v3.2 window, while I'm hoping that imx6q
series can go into v3.2.

Can you please agree that we can let the imx6q clock code in and then
migrate it to clock framework and device tree once they get ready?

I've not looked very deeply at this patch, but I completely agree that
we cannot block new platforms on infrastructure that isn't remotely
mergable at this point in time.

However, imx6 is a new platform.  There isn't any non-DT board support
code to continue to support.  At the very least, the configurable
parameters, like what is passed into mx6q_clocks_init() should be
obtained from the device tree (maybe it already does this though, I
haven't looked that closely).

In general, I say merge it.

g.