On Friday, July 01, 2016 01:55:46 AM Scott Wood wrote:

On Thu, 2016-06-30 at 15:29 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

quoted

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 05:46:42 AM Scott Wood wrote:

quoted

On 06/29/2016 10:02 PM, Yuantian Tang wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@rjwysocki.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 10:24 AM
To: Yuantian Tang <redacted>
Cc: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>; Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk

quoted

;

Michael Turquette [off-list ref]; Stephen Boyd
[off-list ref]; Viresh Kumar [off-list ref]; linux-
clk@vger.kernel.org; linux-pm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-
dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Yang-Leo Li [off-list ref]; Xiaofeng Ren
[off-list ref]; Scott Wood [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] clk: Add consumer APIs for discovering
possible
parent clocks

On Thursday, June 30, 2016 01:47:09 AM Yuantian Tang wrote:

quoted

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Rafael J. Wysocki [mailto:rjw@rjwysocki.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:47 AM
To: Yuantian Tang <redacted>
Cc: Scott Wood <oss@buserror.net>; Russell King
[off-list ref]; Michael Turquette
[off-list ref]; Stephen Boyd [off-list ref];
Viresh Kumar [off-list ref]; linux- clk@vger.kernel.org
;
linux-pm@vger.kernel.org; linuxppc- dev@lists.ozlabs.org; Yang-Leo
Li [off-list ref]; Xiaofeng Ren [off-list ref];
Scott
Wood [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] clk: Add consumer APIs for discovering
possible parent clocks

On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 05:50:26 AM Yuantian Tang wrote:

quoted

Hi,

This patch is acked by clock maintainer. If no comments from
anyone else,

we will merge it in next week.

There is a cpufreq commit depending on it.  Are you going to
handle
that one too?

That one has been acked by cpufreq maintainer. You can get this from

patch comments.

I know that it has been ACKed.

My question is whether or not you are going to apply it along the
[1/2].

If not, it will have to be deferred until the [1/2] is merged and then
applied
which may not be desirable.

I hope we can apply both at same time. Seems Scott has a few concerns.

What you think about this patch? Can you apply it?
If you have applied this patch, then I can push CPUfreq maintainer to
apply another one which will be delayed.

My only concern was getting an ack for this patch (1/2) -- did I miss it
somewhere?

OK, so who's going to apply the series?

Ideally it should go via the cpufreq tree.

OK, I'll apply both, then.

Who exactly has ACKed the [1/2] from the clk side?

Thanks,
Rafael