On 10/19, Gabriel Fernandez wrote:

Hi Stephen,


On 10/19/2016 01:51 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 10/14, gabriel.fernandez at st.com wrote:

quoted

Gabriel Fernandez (6):
  clk: stm32f4: Add LSI & LSE clocks
  ARM: dts: stm32f429: add LSI and LSE clocks
  arm: stmf32: Enable SYSCON
  clk: stm32f4: Add RTC clock
  clk: stm32f469: Add QSPI clock
  ARM: dts: stm32f429: Add QSPI clock

Can the clk patches be picked without causing problems for
existing dt changes? Do you want an ack from clk maintainers
instead of us picking the clk patches up? The series has
intermingled clk and dts changes so I'm confused.

Thanks for reviewing.

Normally DT patches will be taken by STM32 maintainer, but yes there
is a dependency between patch 1 & 2, so if you push the patch 1 into
clk-next tree you have to take also patch 2.

Let's break the dependency by making the required property
optional or key off a different compatible string. As it stands
right now applying patch 1 will cause things to break until the
second patch lands which is not great.

You have to be synchronized with Alexandre Torgue.

I'd prefer zero synchronization. Please just send the clk patches
the next time and leave the stuff for arm-soc out of the patch
series. Thanks.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project