I've unintentionally answered off-line, sorry, re-adding all Cc:'s.

On Thursday 01 of December 2011 at 03:27:51, Tony Lindgren wrote:

* Janusz Krzysztofik [off-list ref] [111130 17:40]:

quoted

On Wednesday 30 of November 2011 at 23:32:42, Tony Lindgren wrote:

quoted

 
Can you please split your series into two: Fix(es) for the -rc cycle,
then patches that can be left for the next merge window.

From my point of view, all 5 are important fixes. Please decide 
yourself, having the following information provided:

1/5: inspired by in-line comments about running from sram requirement
	(works without this one for me),

2/5: without this one, system clock runs way too fast if dpll1 is 
	reprogrammed to default rate,

3/5: without this one, all boards with bootloaders not setting rate 
	correctly, like Amstrad Delta, will run at default rate, despite 
	any .config selections, no matter if omap1_defconfig or custom,

2a/5: required by 3/5,

5/5: without this one, BogoMIPS is not updated after dpll1 reprogramme, 
	breaking omap_keypad at least.

and please let me know which I should resend as fixes and which not.

How about 2 and 5 as fixes during the -rc, then the rest for the
merge window? That is assuming that those are enough for you to have
things mostly working.

If you still ask me for my opinion: with patch 3/5 omitted, then not 
being able to run at any other frequency than 60 MHz instead of usual 
150 since the board support was introduced first, isn't this a 
regression? Having a choice of upgrading to 3.2 and running my 
application on not very powerfull board at 60 MHz, or keep running 3.1 
at 150, guess what I chose? If I were a distro kernel package 
maintainer, guess what I would chose?

It seems that we've had the issue of not actually changing the rate
for a while, right?

This was not an issue before dpll1 reprogramming has been moved out from 
omap1_clk_init(), as an rc fix to another bug introduced in 3.2. Perhaps 
we should rather think of reverting a few commits which caused all these 
problems if fixing them all during rc cycle seems not possible? I 
haven't bisected them yet, rather concentrated on providing fixes, but I 
can still try to do it, starting back from the original issue 
(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-omap/msg60052.html), if so decided.

If that's the case, I'd rather not start messing
with that during the -rc cycle.

Regards,

Tony

I don't feel like a person who makes the final decision.

Anyway, did you mean resending those 2/5 and 5/5 without any changes, 
only renumbered as 1/2 and 2/2?

Thanks,
Janusz