On 10/01/2017 at 12:21:42 +0100, Peter Rosin wrote :

On 2017-01-10 11:42, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

quoted

On 10/01/2017 at 10:52:56 +0100, Peter Rosin wrote :

quoted

On 2017-01-10 10:29, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

quoted

Hi,

This needs a commit message, please add one.

There's not all that much to say, but ok, I'll add something.

It doesn't have to be long but it has to be present.

Does it really? There are quite a few examples to contradict that,
and checkpatch doesn't complain. That's no proof of course...

As I said, I'll add something.

There is public shaming for maintainers taking patches without a commit
message, that's enough for me to require a commit message ;)

https://lwn.net/Articles/560392/

quoted

quoted

quoted

On 10/01/2017 at 09:08:51 +0100, Peter Rosin wrote :

There's also the benefit of the increased chances of me getting
notified of changes. I don't mind...

Do you expect changes coming from third parties? I'm fine with it
anyway.

Ok, I'll remember this and blame you for everything :-)

Well, you can let it there, I was just not sure whether you were
expecting to see patches or just trying to make checkpatch happy. As
said, I'm fine with it.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

+&main {
+	clock-frequency = <12000000>;
+};
+

I don't think this is needed

"this"? The &main frequency, or all of them?

I meant just main

Ok, I'll test with that change and then resend. Thanks!

Cheers,
peda

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com